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

From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 10 2005 - 15:09:28 BST

  • Next message: Matt poot: "Re: MD Home"

    Hi everyone, particularly Bo,

    This exchange between Bo and DMB (quoted below) definitely calls for
    comment from me, because my initial objection to Bo's SOLution was
    very similar to the one set out by DMB here. Roughly, it is: I believe
    in the possibility of continuing with an improved intellect, and don't
    want to see "intellect" banished to the level of SOM. In other words,
    I look forward a "life after SOM" for intellect. After all, wasn't
    Pirsig's mission in ZMM to repair intellect, not to leave it behind
    with SOM and square rationality? I had the idea that Bo was trying to
    throw intellect into the same dungeon as the ugly, square prisoner
    that is SOM.

    This is why I now suggest, Bo, that you drop the "intellect" label
    from the fourth level as defined by the SOL. Call it the logical
    level, the square level, the SOL, the fourth level, whatever. But
    "intellect", for me at least, carries shades of meaning that do _not_
    describe the fourth level in the way in which you want to describe it.
    The fourth level is narrower than "intellect", as the word is commonly
    understood. For instance, the MOQ itself falls within the meaning that
    "intellect" has for most people.

    In short, intellect IS NOT SOM. But the fourth level should be. I
    think it was Paul who said that we should stop asking "which is the
    true MOQ?", and start asking "which is the best MOQ?", or words to
    that effect. Well, I now think that Bo's is the best, because it
    provides a clear, coherent definition of the fourth level. It is only
    the word "intellect" that is muddying the waters of categorisation.

    Just as the inorganic level submits to a higher purpose by allowing
    exceptions to the static law of entropy, just as the biological level
    submits to a higher purpose by allowing exceptions to the static law
    of "might makes right", just as the social level submits to a higher
    purpose by allowing exceptions to the static law of authority, so the
    logical level submits to a higher purpose by allowing exceptions to
    the static law of *definition*. The pattern is clear to see, is it
    not? So why shouldn't the MOQ stand above the fourth level?

    Regards,
    Mike

    On 10/10/05, skutvik@online.no <skutvik@online.no> wrote:
    > DMB.
    >
    > 8 Oct. you wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
    >
    > Why does it bother you? By making intellect a STATIC level the
    > MOQ takes it down from its lofty position in SOM. The levels
    > cannot change their basic patterns only evolve them to greater
    > and greater refinement. When you say "no way to change our
    > intellectual patterns" it is like saying "no way to change our
    > minds". Need I tell you these things?
    >
    > > It would
    > > preclude all other possibilties. So then we have to start adding new
    > > levels and start patching all kinds of leaks.
    >
    > No adding or patching whatsoever. The Quality Reality has
    > intellect as a static level. Can it be simpler?
    >
    > > "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..."
    >
    > I regard the letter to Paul Turner (of Sep. 2003) as amending this
    > annotation from Lila's Child. People of old had language - also
    > the "silent variant" we call thoughts - and mastered many crafts
    > including calculation. But surely, intellect has commandeered all
    > these social "tools" for its own purpose.
    >
    > > >Rebecca responded:
    > > >I think you might be able to accept Aristotle's definition ofd if I
    > > >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'.
    >
    > I feel that this way of observing the "intellect out of society" tenet
    > is too weak.
    >
    > > 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.
    >
    > Agree. Language is older than intellect. But after intellect
    > language became its servant.
    >
    > > I think Pirsig and Aristotle are both talking about the kind
    > > of abstraction and manipulation that isn't present at the social
    > > level.
    >
    > Yes and here is the crux, Aristotle was part of the SOM
    > emergence and saw X as what sets mankind apart from animals
    > (X the step after biology). Pirsig sees the intellectual LEVEL as
    > the step after society which makes for an enormous difference.
    > ZMM is about intellect emerging from society, the Romantic/
    > Classic divide match the two upper levels of his full-blown MOQ.
    > Thus intellect MUST be the subject/object divide - the VALUE
    > thereof. Only this is more than enough to prove the SOL.
    >
    > Not to complicate things I omit the rest of your interesting
    > message and ask you to concentrate on the above.
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 - 16:05:33 BST