Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 08:41:16 BST

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    Hi David M.

    22 Sep.you wrote:

    > Just like to add that I disagree with you as well.

    Good, I would surely be off the MOQ track if you agreed ;-)

    > Intellect kicks off a long time ago.

    According to my dictionary intellect is the ability to distinguish
    between objectivity and subjectivity, and if that isn't SOM ..what
    is?

    > The path towards
    > SOM starts up pretty early according to the records.
    > I would say with the dismissal of the importance of the possible
    > for the sake of the actual.

    Well, Pirsig describes SOM very thoroughly and most
    convincingly in ZMM. So what's the fuzz?

    > But it is only a start on the path to SOM. SOM starts
    > to look like something we can call SOM (i.e.about the
    > clear but wrong distinction between subjects and objects
    > as different substances) by the time
    > of Cartesian dualism I would say and yes it's flower
    > is science.

    Yes, yes and yes again. All this we know and agree about. Pirsig
    says:

         The doctrine of scientific disconnection from social morals goes all
         the way back to the ancient Greek belief that thought is independent
         of society, that it stands alone, born without parents. Ancient
         Greeks such as Socrates and Pythagoras paved the way for the
         fundamental principle behind science: that truth stands independently
         of social opinion.

    I only want to add one important point. Distinguishing between
    objectivity and subjectivity does NOT mean that only objectivity
    (science) came to be, subjectivity also arose from this. The social
    level knew no such distinction, the mythological gods weren't
    spiritual, otherwordly entities.

    > This is a great achievement in terms of the
    > understanding and control of SQ at the pre-social
    > levels (matter if you like).

    Control of SQ at the pre-social levels? Please explain.

    > The problem with it is that
    > it undervalues the SQ that appears on the subjective side
    > alongside the DQ that gets mixed in with it.

    Here is the misunderstanding (that I hoped to avoid with my
    addition about subjectivity above) that the MOQ has any affinity
    for "the subject side". The MOQ reject's the subject/object
    metaphysics wholesalely. Can't you get this into your collective
    heads?

    > Fully developed
    > SOM is where objects=matter=2 lower levels of SQ. Where
    > subject=2 higher levels of SQ and most aspects of DQ.

    I understand that this way of tucking the SOM in under the MOQ
    has such appeal, it fits those who haven't moved one iota out of
    the SOM.

    > SOM devalues the subject and turns materialistic, i.e.
    > dualism with the subject gone missing. So with SOM
    > turned materistic we lose sight on the SQ atthe two higher
    > levels and even worse lose sight entirely of DQ.

    No, no, the SOM is just as much idealism and subjectivism. I'm
    aghast that subjectivism has infested the MOQ. Again, the MOQ
    rejects SOM, every last bit of it.

    > The MOQ comes along to mend this disastrous result of SOM.
    > The MOQ splits experience into DQ/SQ instead of many objects
    > versus the transcendental I-subject under SOM.

    How difficult is it possible to make it? The SOM universe is a
    subject/object one, no more no less (with a welter of subsets of
    course: mind/matter, soul/body, mental/corporeal,
    psychic/physical, ...etc)

    > It gives
    > us the 4 levels and gets us back to recognising DQ.

    The MOQ gives us a Quality Universe. Full stop!

    > This is the
    > intellectual therapy the MOQ provides. We can now discard
    > subject-object metaphysics as many have suggested and
    > take up a quality metaphysics.

    Intellect's "therapy" is its eternal S/O. The Quality therapy is
    seeing a context where intellect's S/O is a mere static value.

    > It is very easy to see how science can
    > be re-conceived without SOM, go read John Dupre's The Disorder of
    > Things.

    All right you have another author as your source I stick to Pirsig.
    Read the message for Anthony again and see how I demonstrate
    that Pirsig's real purport is the SOL interpretation.

    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 : Fri Sep 23 2005 - 09:46:36 BST