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

From: Rebecca Temmer (ratemmer.lists@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 06 2005 - 21:24:42 BST

  • Next message: mark maxwell: "MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology as harmony."

    Hi Bo,
    Good to see something that seems like agreement in the list :)...

    Bo Said:
    Right, thinking is useless. I have harped on that from the Jurassic
    period (MOQ-wise) and finally in the said letter from 2003 Pirsig
    corrected that, but was unable to come all the way to
    RATIONALITY or SOM as the intellectual level. Maybe my "the
    value of the subject/object distinction" makes the SOL look
    complicated, but rationality (or objectivity) necessarily have its
    irrational counterpiece. It is however the VALUE of this distinction
    which is intellect

    Rebecca:
    Okay, I think the problem with SOL being the intellectual level is that it
    gives primacy to and reaffirms the very thing that Pirsig is trying to get
    rid of - SOM. So, could we say that Intellect is rationality "the ability to
    grasp universal concepts" and logic "the ability to manipulate those
    universal concepts". That would remove the S/O problem and leave room for
    Quality Logic to take its place (which is what I assume Pirsig wants to do).
    So that Logic doesn't have to be based on the Subject/Object split inherent
    in Aristotle's Categories (like I postulated in my post on Oct 5) but could
    instead be based on the DQ/SQ split and Pirsig's Quality levels... Does that
    work?

    Bo Said:

    > Right, Aristotle as one of the SOM (intellect) instigators does that,
    > but in a MOQ view there is a value stage between biology
    > (animals) and intellect - the social one - thus we can't accept
    > Aristotle un-modified. Rationality=Intellect. Yes, but as said
    > above rationality's hidden premise is distancing itself from
    > irrationality. Thus the next equation is Rationality=SOM and
    > those two combined making Intellect= SOM.
    >

    Rebecca responds:
    I think you might be able to accept Aristotle's definition of Rationality
    unmodified. If you take the implicit understanding that Aristotle's
    'Universal concepts' are all derived from social experience. Irrationality
    is very much about social context, and Pirsig talks a lot about it in Lila
    with his theories on insanty. Irrational is a soft way of saying 'insane'.

    If you interpret Subjective/Objective within the MOQ framework using the
    definiton of Intellect I just gave you get: Something that is 'Objective' is
    just really really socially accepted, 'Subjective' is less accepted
    socially. The MOQ says it doesn't matter what 'society' says - it's about
    QUALITY.

    There's probably more to come... I need to go have some food and nicotine
    ...
    Rebecca

    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 : Thu Oct 06 2005 - 21:56:04 BST