From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 15:57:14 BST
Mike mostly
(I took the liberty to change the subject line)
On 10 Oct. you wrote:
> 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 was really some suggestion Mike. I have understood that
"intellect" carries the load of MIND and that any attempt to bring
it in line with what Pirsig's books indicate is seen as some
degradation.
It must once again point to the strange fact that (the dictionaries'
definition of) "intellect" can be honed down to the S/O capability
and as I concluded in my SOL essay:
What screws it up is the said "mind" notion which makes
anyone reading this interpret it as mind doing the intellectualizing",
while in MOQ's definition intellect is doing the subject/object-ualizing.
So I wonder if you too are victim of the "intelligence fallacy"?
Namely that you mean intelligence when speaking of intellect?
> 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_
My initial reaction to this - just initial, not any final verdict - is that
renaming the intellectual level (it requires a new Q-level?) will
evoke the same logical bends as my earlier 5th. level did. What
would your diagram of the the MOQ look like after this shuffle?
> 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.
Yes, it is narrower than intellect ...as mind, but the MOQ is
supposed to be an inside-out-turn, thus some profound
adjustments have to be made, and one may be our (intuitive
understanding of ) intellect.
> 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.
I wish that Paul would have stayed, because we won't have
peace until this business is settled. Hopefully you (all) will put
your great intelligence to work ...not intellect because it only spins
more S/O yarn ;-)
> 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?
Great insights Mike! This is exactly how I see MOQ's impact on
the earlier SOM reality. You and I obviously understand our
respective motives to distance the MOQ from the fourth level. In
a post to Ian Glendinning (of 10 Oct.) I wrote:
-----------------------
Now, I don't postulate a 5th. level, the MOQ's intellectual
framework is intellectual and will remain so (by the same token
as biology's building block (carbon) remains inorganic, but it has
formed a Quality reality of which intellect is a sub-set. I still
search for the ultimate formulation here.
> Why leave rationality imprisoned in an ancient first attempt, let's not
> throw out rationality itself with the bathwater.
Rationality isn't "thrown out" by being relegated the role of the
highest static level? No more than the social level "threw out"
biology or intellect eliminated society, intellect just becomes
subordinate to the Quality Reality.
--------------------------
Do you see and/or approve of this way of "eating the cake and
keeping it" ...how Quality can stand above, yet remaining an
intellectual pattern?
Preliminary yours.
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 11 2005 - 16:19:35 BST