From: Laycock, Jos (OSPT) (Jos.Laycock@OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 10:12:37 BST
Hi Bo,
You asked:
"I'm not sure if I get what you think of as "different colours".
Examples please."
and
"Different colours of societies? You mean different forms of
societies? In that sense there are certainly many intellectual
"colours" f.ex. the ones that Pirsig lists in Lila: Democracy, an
independent judicial body, free press and speech ...etc., but I feel
that this isn't your point."
I mean this as a way of differentiating between apparently separate
intellectual levels that have arisen from different cultures, ie the Indian
and the Greek. Whatever "the intellectual level" is defined by, it
encompasses them both, but I don't think that their constituent static
intellectual patterns are the same. I am just trying to re-enforce the non
divergent nature of the intellectual static level.
Then following my suggestion,
"My particular intellectual perception, that is built on and coloured
by static cultural value, is still rational"
you then commented:
"Yes its rational, but we are supposed to look upon things from the
MOQ - not solely from its rational-intellectual level."
And I am! I'm just not speaking very clearly,
I am describing rationality as the ability to determine subject from object,
and so what I have really said is that, whatever different types of
intellectual static patterns there are, they are all encompassed by the SOL.
I wanted to see if saying it in slightly shrouded terms made it any more
digestible to the group, and in fact nobody directly objected to this above
sentence, (except in misunderstanding)
This was also why I needed to establish exactly what you had meant with:
Bo:
"I see, but if one sees the S/O as just one intellectual value, the
question arises what the REAL intellectual value is"
then me:
> **I understand you to say that, the "REAL intellectual value" is the
> one whose description encompasses all others?
Then Bo,
"Regarding intellect I don't say anything like the above, but that
the S/O defines intellect. Anyone who speak of other intellectual
patterns (non-S/O) ends in intelligence. (Intelligence's place in
the MOQ we must discuss some day)"
We are talking at cross purposes here, I was implying that the "real
intellectual value" (is that which is defined by S/O and thus) encompasses
all others.
Badly phrased I think, please expand on your initial thoughts about
intelligence's place in the MOQ.
Jos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of skutvik@online.no
Sent: 11 September 2005 16:19
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)
Hello again Jos
On 9 Sep. you said:
> 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.
Granted.
Me earlier:
> > "I see, but if one sees the S/O as just one intellectual value, the
> > question arises what the REAL intellectual value is"
Jos now:
> **I understand you to say that, the "REAL intellectual value" is the
> one whose description encompasses all others?
Turning to biology. If for example I had said that the mammal
organism defines it, I would have been wrong and you would
have been right in pointing to other organisms. I guess we agree
that LIFE defines biology ( a tautology surely :)
Regarding intellect I don't say anything like the above, but that
the S/O defines intellect. Anyone who speak of other intellectual
patterns (non-S/O) ends in intelligence. (Intelligence's place in
the MOQ we must discuss some day)
> > Implying, nobody except you?
No, because I have the said mundane definition.
> > "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?
The reason why I have harped on the dictionary issue is that
Pirsig says that intellect is self-evident - implied how dictionaries
defines it - and I wanted to show that they in fact define it the
SOL way, not as thinking or "mind". Had that been observed
there wouldn't have been any problem.
> > "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**),
I'm not sure if I get what you think of as "different colours".
Examples please.
Let me drone on: SOM (the intellectual level of the MOQ) has
two aspects - subjective and objective - and before the MOQ
much disagreement went on what was the real one; mind or
matter? (it still goes on outside our elevated circle ;-) The
idealists say that all is mind, while the materialist say the
opposite. One such SOM idealist who don't understand the MOQ
will look upon its intellectual as the mind that has created the
world (the rest of the levels). The SOM materialist will however
declare it a load of crap (Struan Hellier).
> 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:
Different colours of societies? You mean different forms of
societies? In that sense there are certainly many intellectual
"colours" f.ex. the ones that Pirsig lists in Lila: Democracy, an
independent judicial body, free press and speech ...etc., but I feel
that this isn't your point.
> "My particular intellectual perception, that is built on and coloured
> by static cultural value, is still rational"
Yes its rational, but we are supposed to look upon things from the
MOQ - not solely from its rational-intellectual level.
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 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 10:51:47 BST