From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 09 2005 - 19:23:17 BST
seems to me social SQ goes unquestioned and is linked
to traditional, religion and authority, intellectual SQ begins when
we question what is quality sq and what is not, hence the sophism
gets going. Of course the old testament has a lotof questioning of god
in it, you can see someone is anti-intellectual when they are anti asking
questions.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)
Rebecca said to Bo:
>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 replied:
> > 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.
dmb says:
Rationalities hidden premise? I don't think that rationality and intellect
are equal to SOM, but that maybe dualities are somehow inherent. It seems
that abstract symbols are created by clear distinctions and divisions and so
it will necessarily involve an infinite number of pairs of opposites. But
the thing that bothers me most about equating SOM with the intellectual
level is that it removes the possibility that intellect itself could ever
escape this particular formulation, there's no way to change or evolve our
intellectual patterns except within the confines of SOM. It would preclude
all other possibilties. So then we have to start adding new levels and start
patching all kinds of leaks.
"Many forms of intellect do not have a subject-object construction. These
include logic itself, mathematics, computer programming languages, and, I
believe some primitive languages. ..."Intellect" can then be defined very
loosely as the level of independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and
mathematics can be described as the rules of this sign manipulation..."
>Rebecca responded:
>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'.
dmb says:
Right. I think its possible to talk without being very intellectual, but
there is no way to be intellectual without using some kind of language. I
think Pirsig and Aristotle are both talking about the kind of abstraction
and manipulation that isn't present at the social level. I'm not so sure
that the that the generations immediately prior to Socrates walked around in
an undifferentiated state of bliss or whatever, but it seems clear that the
social level "thinking" is less abstract and less manipulable. But if
"celebrity" is the central organizing principle of the social level, I think
its safe to say the idea of a self in the world has existed for a long time
before SOM or intellect ever came along. King Tut was a freakin ego-maniac,
you know. Thought he was a god and all that. Built huge monuments and had
his name carved in stone. The cave paintings in France, now that might have
been produced by beings still living within that ?"original participation"
Barfeild talks about. That seems a little more plausible. But start getting
people out of nature and concentrated into cities, then a sense of self
really begins to emerge. I'm only imagining how ancient people saw the
world, but the point is that we've inherited quite a lot from them. The
language we speak has subjects and objects as part of it structure and
content. When the intellect's penchant for dualities is added to its
dependence on social level language to furnish the categories of thought, it
can look like SOM and intellect are the same thing, that SOM is a natural
part of it. But I think its more like we blundered our way into SOM by way
of celebrity, by way of dualistic religions and other social patterns. SOM
is what you get when the intellect is just emerging from the social level,
when its young and doesn't have much of it own to work with yet, if you
will.
ooops. gotta go.
thanks
dmb
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 : Mon Oct 10 2005 - 08:23:25 BST