From: Laycock, Jos (OSPT) (Jos.Laycock@OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK)
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 13:16:07 BST
Hi Paul,
Please don't lump my ideas together with Bodvar's, both of us can see
fundamental differences. Being relatively new to the site I find people all
to readily assign me to particular camps, either their own, or someone
else's and then attack/support the camp's position rather than what I have
posted. I find this practice very frustrating and want to discourage it at
all costs.
That aside there are some points of mine that you have disagreed with which
I would like to answer.....
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Paul Turner
Sent: 12 September 2005 13:10
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)
Jos, Bo,
>I feel that something is missed here, the MOQ is an intellectual pattern,
>that describes something above intellect in the hierarchy, is it not?
Paul: It says that Dynamic Quality is 'above' intellect in its hierarchy as
well as pervading it.
Jos 14/09/05:
Fair point,
>And
>because one level can only communicate with its immediate neighbours, it
>predicts that any quality based supra-intellectual view of the world must
>arise out of intellectual patterns.
Paul: If by "quality based supra-intellectual view of the world" you mean
something like Zen Buddhism then in my experience it does not say that
Dynamic Quality arises 'out of' intellectual patterns, rather that
intellectual patterns arise out of the Buddha's world i.e. Dynamic Quality,
and that Dynamic Quality is perceived as the 'blowing out' of static
patterns.
Jos 14/09/05:
This isn't exactly what I meant, I am not saying that dynamic quality arises
out of intellect, I am saying that the construct that describes it arises
out of intellect. Trouble is, I am also (currently) sticking to saying that
intellect is restricted to logic (which I am defining as subject/object
distinction) so if I have an idea that is "better" than intellect's view of
the world, I place it above intellect in the hierarchy. Are you absolutely
certain that there are only 4 levels?
Zen Buddhism doesn't say that the Tao arises from, intellect, far from it,
but it will accept that Zen Buddhism both arises out of intellect and is
distinct from it.
>So the eastern intellectual level must come before (below) their quality
>insight, and is not defined by it as you suggest.
>IMO the quotes Bo refers to below, are simply not relevant to the eastern
>intellectual level, they are real vent to the eastern MOQ!
Paul: By saying that the Upanishads are "not relevant to the eastern
intellectual level, they are real vent to the eastern MOQ", you are begging
the question, like Bo, i.e. you are saying that the MOQ (or any
quality-insight-based metaphysics) is not a part of the intellectual level
as some kind of evidence that the MOQ is not a part of the intellectual
level.
Jos 14/09/05:
Can you re-phrase/ re-punctuate this, I can't understand it. What is the
question?
(Honestly, sorry, no-offence)
>I would argue that the intellectual level can always be identified with SOM
>if there was any rational age (however brief) in the East that preceded
>that
>quality insight.
Paul: SOM is not the sole purview of logic and rationality. You and Bo
need to get over this. This line of thought is dismissive of the rigorously
rational, logical methods used by an abundance of eastern (and some western)
scholars e.g. Nagarjuna who reject SOM outright (although there are an
abundance who embrace SOM).
Jos 14/09/05:
Ok Paul, I could go and read everything in the nearest library (and no doubt
it would do me good) but I really shouldn't have to in order to understand
you. Could you specify exactly what is logical or rational about the
dismissal of SOM? I feel we are deliberately talking/thinking at cross
purposes to one another. I could choose to draw lines in different places
and so could you. If the static level is not defined by SOM logic, then you
are right but if it is, then your examples are irrelevant. None of this
addresses the conflict.
If someone uses intellectual logical arguments to debate mystic phenomena
this is fine. The debate is an intellectual pattern and the subject of the
debate can be anything from within the cultural pattern it is written upon.
I agree with you that these cultures have intellect, I agree that it arose
independently of the Greeks, I don't agree that it is fundamentally any
different from the Greek intellect, it just talks about different things.
End.
It is widely accepted that three strands of
logic were independently systematized at around the same time in China
(Mohist), India (Nyaya), and Greece (Aristotelian).
>Any more historians out there?
Paul: I quote below a summary of the significance of the Upanishadic era
taken from a South-Asian History website. CAPS are my emphasis.
http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/upanishad.html
"Although the Upanishadic texts (like some of the earlier Vedic texts) are
primarily concerned with acquiring knowledge of the "soul", "spirit" and
"god" - there are aspects of Vedic and Upanishadic literature that also
point to an intuitive understanding of nature and natural processes. In
addition, many of the ideas are presented in a philosophical and exploratory
manner - rather than as strict definitions of inviolable truth.
Although the Upanishadic texts goaded the Upanishadic student to concentrate
on comprehending the inner spirit, rational investigation of the world by
other scholars was not entirely squelched, and eventually, the Upanishadic
period gave way to an era which was not inimical to the development of
rational ideas, even encouraging scientific observation and advanced study
in the fields of logic, mathematics and the physical sciences.
Following an era when rituals and superstitions had begun to proliferate, in
some ways the Upanishadic texts helped to clear the ground for greater
rationalism in society. Brahmin orthodoxy and ideas of ritual purity were
superseded by a spiritual perspective that eschewed sectarianism and could
be practised universally, UNFETTERED BY AN INDIVIDUAL'S SOCIAL STANDING.
Much of the emphasis was on discovering "spiritual truths" for oneself AS
OPPOSED TO MECHANICALLY ACCEPTING THE TESTIMONY OF ESTABLISHED RELIGIOUS
LEADERS. Although there is a thematic commonality to the Upanishadic
discourses, different commentators offered subtly varying perspectives and
insights."
"In the course of defining their philosophy, the scholars of the Upanishad
period raised several questions that challenged mechanical theism (as was
also done in some hymns from the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda). If god existed
as the unique creator of the world, they wondered who created this unique
creator. The logical pursuit of such a line of questioning could either
lead to an infinite series of creators, or to the rejection or abandonment
of this line of questioning. The common theist solution to this
philosophical dilemma was to simply reject logic and demand unquestioning
faith on the part of the believer. A few theists attempted to use this
contradiction to their own advantage by positing that god existed precisely
because "He" was indescribable by mere mortals. But, by and large, this
contradiction was taken very seriously by the philosophers of the
Upanishadic period. The Upanishadic philosophers attempted to resolve this
contradiction by defining god as an entity that extended infinitely in all
dimensions covering both space and time. This was a philosophical advance
in that it attempted to come to terms with at least the most obvious
challenges to the notion of god as a human-like creator and did not require
the complete rejection of logic.
Another philosophical advance of the Upanishadic period was that religion
was transformed from the realm of bookish parroting of scriptures to the
realm of advanced intellectual debate and polemics. The Upanishadic
philosophers did not lay down their conclusions as rigid doctrines or
inviolable laws but as seductive parables - sometimes displaying remarkable
worldly insight and analytical skill. By attempting to win over their
followers through analogies from nature, and by employing THE METHODS OF
ABSTRACT REASONING AND DEBATE, they created an environment where dialectical
thinking and intellectual exchanges could later flourish.
In the very process of their questioning, (and albeit speculative reasoning
about god), they had opened the door for rationalists and even outright
atheists who took their tentative questioning about the role and the
character of god as "creator" to conclusions that rejected theism entirely.
But in either case, many rationalist and/or naturalist philosophical streams
emerged from this initial foundation. Some were nominally theistic (but in
the abstract Upanishadic vein), others were agnostic (as the early Jains),
while the early Buddhists and the Lokayatas were atheists. Thus even though
the Upanishads contained much that should rightly be dismissed as abstruse
intellectual jugglery and philosophical mumbo-jumbo, the Upanishadic
philosophers had levelled the ground for the seeds of rationalism to
flourish in Indian soil."
Remember that you and Bo both think that the excerpts I provided from the
Upanishads are evidence of a "quality-like" pattern. If this above is not a
perfect example of the emergence of an intellectual level independently from
the Greeks I don't know what is.
Regards
Paul
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 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 14:16:27 BST