From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 11:12:04 BST
Anthony & Group.
5 Oct. you wrote:
> Rebecca Temmer suggested October 4th 2005:
> >It seems to me that if we're looking at Metaphysics, a good place to
> >begin might be with the guy who 'invented' it... Aristotle. Thinking
> >as an activity is probably not a useful distinction, as cited in the
> >letter to Paul above: " 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." Aristotle makes Rationality the defining line between
> >humans and other animals. Rational, being the ability to grasp
> >universal concepts (God, triangle, Justice... etc). Perhaps this is
> >the intellectual level we're looking for? This might be a better
> >compromise than the SOL that Bo has proposed (which, admittedly I
> >don't know a lot about) because it is more fundamental.
> Ant McWatt comments:
> Yes, I agree with Ham that Rebecca’s suggestion is a good one.
> However, unlike Ham or Bo, I would suggest that Pirsig has only
> rejected the ‘thinking intellect’ when this definition isn’t
> qualified.
"... only rejected the "thinking intellect" when this definition isn't
qualified". What does that mean?
Anyway, long ago in the discussion someone (Magnus Berg?)
began to "see" societies everywhere; Beehives, anthills, bodies
as societies of cells, even matter as societies of molecules,
meaning that "parts making up a whole" (as a definition) does not
work for Q-social value.
"Thinking" was the most obvious definition of intellect, but it leads
to the same ad ifinitum absuridy. This means that it is NOT the
criterion for Q-intellectual value. Can't these things be realized?
> Aristotle’s definition of rationality “being the ability
> to grasp universal concepts” such as triangle, justice, truth etc)
> certainly seems to be the possible qualification (to distinguish human
> thinking from dog thinking, for instance) that the MOQ intellectual
> level requires.
As said to Rebecca the MOQ has a (human) level before intellect
meaning that Aristotle's view of what constitutes humanity can't
be used directly as Q-intellect, that would mean an intellect out of
biology (the "thinking" mess again). The out-of-society tenet must
be heeded, and if Aristotle's rationality is seen as part of the
development described in ZMM this and everything else is
perfect.
> As I’ve noted previously, I think the SOLAQI doesn’t work as there’s
> either no metaphysical place for the MOQ in its metaphysical map or,
> if the MOQ is put in “SOM as intellect” level (the only possible place
> for it in SOLAQI), that would mean the MOQ would be contained by SOM.
> Either way, Bo’s SOLAQI is a radical solution that leads to a
> metaphysical mess.
First about MOQ's "place" in the MOQ.
Where is any theory's place within itself? Everywhere - meaning
nowhere - because once it is spotted it means that some greater
context has begun to wield its power. Look to SOM. Before Pirsig
no-one knew about any subject/object metaphysics, only about
the subject/object divide, but that was not a theory rather reality
itself. After Pirsig pointed to it its magic was gone.
The DQ/SQ divide is now reality for those who have seen its
beauty. The MOQ however began after Phaerus' pursuit of
rationality (S/O logic) had brought him to despair, and such seen
it began as an intellectual pattern, but once it grew to
metaphysical proportions it "took off on a purpose of it's own" and
is now the Quality Reality, but its intellectual base remains, the
same way as the biological base society (for instance)
Next your " ... if the MOQ is put in “SOM as intellect” level (the
only possible place for it in SOLAQI), that would mean the MOQ
would be contained by SOM."
Above I clarify how I see it. The MOQ is the reality of which
intellect is the highest subset of. The "moq" can be seen as the
intellectual pattern that DQ used as its stepping stone.
> Either way, Bo’s SOLAQI is a radical solution that leads to a
> metaphysical mess.
Isn't the MOQ supposed to be radical?
> .... It also lacks an explanation of the separate development of
> SOM in East Asia.
This poses no problem, there may have been a SOM (meaning
an intellectual period) in Oriental philosophy which was then
replaced by a Quality-like one. This is in fact what happened -
what HAD to happen.
> On the other hand, Rebecca’s use of
> Aristotle’s definition of rationality avoids SOLAQI’s metaphysical
> mess, can be related to the East Asian philosophical tradition and,
> moreover, can be correlated to Pirsig’s expanded intuitive
> understanding of rationality that is found in ZMM (as per Poincaré
> etc). So, yes, I think Rebecca's suggestion (regarding MOQ intellect)
> is definitely a better compromise than the SOLAQI.
I can't see the great difference between "Rationality as Q-
intellect" (RAQI) and "Subject/Object Logic as Q-intellect" ... if
SOM is seen as rationality.
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 Oct 07 2005 - 11:18:15 BST