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

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 19:47:23 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ."

    Scott and Expedition Members.

    > [Bo said:]
    > > Again the intellectual level as "thinking". Is there anything less
    > > static and more dynamic than that? Even Pirsig has rejected thinking
    > > as definition for the STATIC intellectual level. (write "static"
    > > hundred times on your blackboard!)

    > Scott:
    > Where did he say this?

    In the much cited letter to Paul:

        (Pirsig)
        If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures just
        because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about
        chimpanzees? Don't they think? ...snip.

    As said to Anthony, Pirsig does not phrase it that way because
    that would be to agree with the SOL and that is difficult, he
    merely says that thinking is useless as a definition.

    > I am curious because I have been saying for a
    > long time that thinking should be considered as DQ, and as far as I
    > can recall, no one has agreed with me. But I do not distinguish
    > significantly between thinking and intellect, so here again we
    > disagree on how to use these terms.

    Thinking as DQ? No bad idea, that means a Metaphysics of
    Thought. Dynamic/Static thought ...etc, but also in a MOT the
    intellectual level will have to be the subject/object distinction.

    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 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 03:37:12 BST