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

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 18:49:03 BST

  • Next message: Matt poot: "Re: MD Duty to Oneself Only? Or Others?"

    Well I think my thinking would be very diffferent
    if I did not have a human body. Discover is a word
    dropping out of the phil of science these days, see John Dupre's
    Disorder of Things for example.

    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Case" <Case@iSpots.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:53 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

    > [DM]
    >>> Well, you see my point: This biological complexity created an
    >>> inner "mental" world evolving to dreams with animals, further to
    >>> imagination and daydreams with Homo Erectus and onwards. But
    >>> this is still at the biological level moqwise, and my idea is that this
    >>> is INTELLIGENCE and the biological pattern that Q-evolution
    >>> rode to the social stage. It is wrongly seen as INTELLECT!
    > [Case]
    > Are you actaully saying the bilogical complexity "creates" the the inner
    > mental world or do you mean that the complexity of the inner world is a
    > function of biological complexity?
    >
    > [Bo]
    >>> But note, even if I called it a mental or inner word - indicating
    >>> SOM - the biological level knew/know no such distinction, nor did
    >>> the social level early man. When he heard voices, they were not
    >>> in his head but gods speaking to him. Even present-day social
    >>> value humankind applies (what intellect calls) supernatural
    >>> explanation when confronted with (what intellect calls) natural
    >>> events.
    > [Case]
    > The idea the early man took the voices in his head to be the voices of
    > gods was propounded by Julian Jaynes in "The Origin of Consciousness in
    > the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" but I never thought anyone took it
    > seriously.
    >
    > [Bo]
    >>> Conclusion: I hope you see my point: It is intellect that has
    >>> created and upholds the schism between the inner and outer
    >>> experience. If it is REAL has no meaning outside intellect, it is an
    >>> enormous value that has created modernity (science of all kinds,
    >>> but also the welter of value patterns that Pirsig lists in LILA) It is
    >>> not something we can abandon, but must retain as the the
    >>> highest level in the MOQ hierarchy, only subordinate to the
    >>> system of which it is a part.
    > [Case]
    > I think the schism between inner and outer is very real. The inner is
    > composed entirely of experience and the outer is who knows what? The outer
    > is known to the extent that it is, because people decided to quit arguing
    > over inner ideals, about which we have no basis for agreeing, and focused
    > on those things that we can come to intersubjective agreement about. I
    > find it curious that a system with the unknown at its heart and an avowed
    > preferance for the dynamic can be to so bogged down in a static heirarchy.
    >
    > [DM:]
    > Apology accepted. I am not sure what I think of what you have said.
    > Or what you think we are in danger of abandoning. My thread on the
    >> impossibility of avoiding transcendence in the MOQ if we are to recognise
    >> a world (as a whole) that transcends our experience of it may be linked.
    >> Our ability to explain and describe and model experience does require the
    >> understanding created by SOM,
    >> but the illusion that we discover rather than create this understanding
    >> is one of the things
    >> MOQ crucially overcomes.
    > [Case]
    > Is this what you think Pirsig means by saying that MoQ subsumes SOM? Are
    > you suggesting that we are "creating" a relationship between the inner and
    > outer worlds out of whole cloth rather than "discovering" the properties
    > of this relationship?
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 02:04:22 BST