From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 09:23:21 BST
Ian and Sam if he listens.
31 Aug. Ian wrote:
> 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.)
"Once we're sure what we mean by intellect". Yes, it's been the
headache for years, and just as long has it been my conviction
that Phaedrus of ZMM was on the right track when he said that
intellect is the Subject/Object "generator". (See diagram in ZMM
of the preliminary MOQ). I regret to criticise Pirsig, but he omitted
the one single most important point of his original insight when he
wrote the final MOQ ...and by doing so created an impossible
intellectual level, even an impossible MOQ.
> 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.
"The lowest form of intellect"? In my opinion the static intellectual
level is SOM. All of it, every last bit! If we retain a somish "mind"
as the true intellect - one that once was invaded by SOM and
now is supposed to be topped up with the MOQ - we are back in
the quagmire.
> 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.
Yes, Sam and I was once in touch about our respective efforts to
"repair" the intellectual level and his Eudaimonic idea and my
SOL may correspond well. Of late I have come to see that. The
subject - the free independent subject - is of course a result of the
SOM.
> 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
In my opinion too Ian! And I have always wondered why. I have
assigned it to what I wrote about the lone sailor not being sure if
anyone would understand, needing an "objective" approach. But
a greater mystery is why - after getting himself a group discussing
his ideas - still kept up this somish intellect.
The ironic thing is that he refers to intellect as self-evident and
yet don't heed what dictionaries define it as, namely the ability to
distinguish what is objective from what's subjective (Reason from
emotions and instincts)
In the Paul letter, he dropped the "thinking" definition, but
seemed unable to take the full step to the SOL and ended up with
the equally impossible "manipulation of symbols" definition
> and I wasn't party to the whole Lila
> squad annotations process.)
The Lila Child is OK. 99% of the annotations are good, but there
are some horrible things, particularly regarding intellect and about
the MOQ having an "idealist" slant
> The top level of the MoQ IS the MoQ.
> Get used to it.
You made my day Ian!
Bo
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 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 10:13:58 BST