From: Laycock, Jos (OSPT) (Jos.Laycock@OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK)
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 11:53:42 BST
Morning Bodvar,
Thanks for the below, I understand my own position better for it, and I
think that it is becoming not so very different from yours.
I don't expect that much of what I am saying is very new to you, but I will
plough on anyway on the offchance.
"I see, but if one sees the S/O as just one intellectual value, the
question arises what the REAL intellectual value is"
**I understand you to say that, the "REAL intellectual value" is the one
whose description encompasses all others?
"and after all these years no one has found out - except ending in the
intelligence fallacy."
Implying, nobody except you?
"In the opening of this thread I referred to the
dictionary and showed that intellect is defined as the S/O
capability. I wonder why this is ignored."
I think this is a slightly cheap shot, dictionary compliers don't tell us
how to think and if the words contained are the consensus views of the
populous, (i.e. defined by usage) then they are SOM words, (or worse still
they are cultural level defined words) words and so are their definitions,
this to me is a very good reason to ignore them, If you get bored, how about
writing a new language that is underpinned completely by MOQ?
"I see you logic, but please see mine: All value levels up to
intellect are "universal" why should it diverge into wildly different
directions when it comes to intellect? What I mean is (for
example) that if life should be discovered on Proxima Centauri it
is biological value. Should that life be social it is social value,
thus there must be some common denominator to intellect
too .. if not one resorts to "intelligence" but that is a dead end."
I don't mean to imply divergence, adhering to MOQ-think there isn't any, so
whatever synthesis I am to adopt cant include any either. Aside from this, I
see that you understand me completely, so:
Perhaps there are different colours of intellect then, that all reside
within the subject object level(REAL**), in the way that there are different
colours of societies that all reside within the cultural static level.
So the group has it the wrong way around, saying that SOL is one type of
intellectual pattern when they should be saying:
"My particular intellectual perception, that is built on and coloured by
static cultural value, is still rational"
Ah!
Regards
Jos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of skutvik@online.no
Sent: 09 September 2005 09:17
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)
Hi again Jos
On 7 Sep. you spoke:
> I am very pleased to see that you class emotions as of the cultural
> level, and certainly concur, but I don't see that they fully define
> the awareness that exists there, likewise I agree that the
> intellectual level includes rationality but am still not sure that
> it is defined by it.
Regarding emotions I too am very pleased to see an agreement.
About your reservation if they (emotions) fully defines the social
level ? I made this list of level "expressions" long ago:
Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason.
Now, is expression a viable notion? Pirsig has no such thing.
Well, it so tersely expresses (!) what the respective levels are
about ... in my opinion?
> Reading your comments I find that you have slightly subverted one of
> my points but I will put this down to my own rhetorical paucity
> leading to misunderstanding. Just to make sure we understand one
> another:
> "If I read you correctly I agree. Intellect is the capability to
> separate subjective emotions from objective reason."
> I said that intellect INCLUDES the ability to contrast feelings with
> reason, I didn't say that it IS the ability to contrast feelings
> with emotion. (not to say that I cannot be convinced otherwise)
I see, but if one sees the S/O as just one intellectual value, the
question arises what the REAL intellectual value is, and after all
these years no one has found out - except ending in the
intelligence fallacy. In the opening of this thread I referred to the
dictionary and showed that intellect is defined as the S/O
capability. I wonder why this is ignored.
> Next problem I have is with the "intellect started with the Greeks"
> assertion. It seems perfectly reasonable to say this about western
> intellect but in accepting that this intellect is made out of static
> value patterns superimposed upon existing cultural static value
> patterns I think it is logical to assume that different types of
> intellectual awareness should follow from different types of
> cultures. It might be fair to say that we experience an intellectual
> awareness that started with the Greeks and that this part of the
> intellectual level is absolutely defined by the comparisons between
> subjects and objects, but what about an eastern intellectual level?
> Do they somehow not have one? Pirsig always talks about western
> intellect vs. eastern mysticism but never approaches any other
> permutation. I think that I agree that my own intellectual
> PERCEPTION is a subject object level, but don't (yet) see how I/we
> can generalise for any other culture, or that perception,
> necessarily defines all of ANY level.
I see you logic, but please see mine: All value levels up to
intellect are "universal" why should it diverge into wildly different
directions when it comes to intellect? What I mean is (for
example) that if life should be discovered on Proxima Centauri it
is biological value. Should that life be social it is social value,
thus there must be some common denominator to intellect
too .. if not one resorts to "intelligence" but that is a dead end.
Paul Turner and I once discussed this, my view is that intellectual
patterns are S/O wherever. The bone was a letter in which Pirsig
said.
* The argument that Oriental cultures would not be classified as
intellectual is avoided by pointing out that the Oriental cultures
developed an intellectual level independently of the Greeks
during the Upanishadic period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C.
(These dates may be off.) The argument that the MOQ is not an
intellectual formulation but some kind of other level is not clear to
me. There is nothing in the MOQ that I know of that leads to this
conclusion.
Firstly notice that Pirsig says that the Greeks developed intellect
(only that is a great SOL victory) but the strange thing is that he
postulates an independent Oriental intellect as if a different one.
This violates the MOQ tenet that all levels are universal. As said,
if extra-terrestrial life is found, this is NOT an independent
biological level.
Upon closer examination Paul revealed that the said Upanishadic
philosophy is the very subject/object one and that the further
Indian development was in a Quality-like direction. Exactly as I
claim that through the MOQ the Western culture is now
transcending its own "Uphanishadic" era.
> Nice to meet you Bo
Thanks Jos. I have been at it for years - both at the discussion
and at my SOL interpretation - and may sound rigid, it's just that
if one accepts the Quality premises (which I do) the SOL is the
inevitable conclusion. No one has been able to disprove it unless
they revert to the SOM premises and those I can't be bothered
with.
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
PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
in partnership with MessageLabs.
Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
for further details.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
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 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 12:00:52 BST