From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 31 2005 - 11:56:03 BST
Bo, Sam, et al,
Bo said
> Because we are supposed to discuss the MOQ from its own
> premises not from the intellect's - where it as said has the
> proverbial snowball's chance.
I agree with this.
(Once we're sure what we mean by intellect, or the itellectual SPV, of course.)
I've been saying all along that if the lowest form of intellect, the
kind of "SOMist" rationality that pre-dates the MoQ, is all we're
going to argue with, we may as well give up. Bo's snowball in hell is
my chocolate fireguard.
In my discussions with Sam about re-defining intellect he pointed out
that Bo's "SOLAQI" stuff was addressing the same issue. I need to dig
into that.
It's also part of my catch-22 / recursive / meta-argument - we need to
be comfortable debating the MoQ from the MoQ perspective (as Pirsig
clearly wasn't in Lila, IMHO, and I wasn't party to the whole Lila
squad annotations process.)
The top level of the MoQ IS the MoQ.
Get used to it.
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 31 2005 - 12:48:55 BST