From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 12:21:02 BST
Bo, Sam, et al,
(I'd be much obliged if this thread could stay on topic, it's part of
a wider discussion beyond MD. "Instructions" at the end.)
Bo latched onto my agreement with Sam about "intellect" being badly
defined in received understanding of the MoQ. In a nutshell too much
of the debate, explanation, argument used to define intellect is using
SOMist (logical positivist rationale) Rationality.
Bo's proposed solution is to see the MoQ as outside or beyond the four
SPV's so that the upper of the SPV's contained can be re-defined as
GOF-SOMist Intellect itself. (Bo's alternative Subject-Object Layer.)
Mine is to see GOF-SOMist Intellect as just one pre-existing static
latch within a more broadly defined intellectual level consisting, at
levels above that latch, as the MoQ itself. (I see it that way because
it leaves room for future evolution of the MoQ itself, within itself.
It allows me to hang on to the cranky idea that a repaired MoQ could
be "the final word", whilst still claiming to be a pragmatist - but I
pre-empt the debate.)
Either way we agree re-definition of the Intellectual-SPV is needed,
and an understanding of the MoQ - just another SP(I)V - within or in
relation to it.
The important thing is that anyone contributing to this debate MUST
apply their full MoQ-Intellect, not just GOF-SOMist intellectual
arguments, even though we have not yet defined / agreed what that
"Full MoQ-Intellect" really is. If we don't manage that, any
conclusion is practically useless.
Anyone up for that recursive challenge ?
My guess is we'll get led very quickly back to consciousness /
immediate / empirical experience issues supporting intellect very
quickly - a qualitative, intuitive MOQ "guess" notice, not a
knock-down SOMist logical argument :-)
Regards
Ian
On 9/1/05, skutvik@online.no <skutvik@online.no> wrote:
> 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
>
>
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 - 13:03:55 BST