From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 12 2005 - 15:35:23 BST
Hi Mark,
> Mike:
> I believe in the possibility of continuing with an
> improved intellect, and don't want to see "intellect"
> banished to the level of SOM.
> Mark:
> Hi Mike,
> The order you should have is this:
> Intellect
> Rationality
> SOM
> The order Bo has been pressing, with no textual
> support, for 8 years is this:
> SOM
> Rationality
> Intellect.
> Intellect never was, anywhere, and especially not in
> ZMM, regarded as SOM. That is a huge mistake.
> However, Bodvar has actively promoted this notion when
> it is in fact his own view and no one Else's. I
> believe i am correct in stating that this fact is well
> understood by Ant McWatt, Paul Turner and others.
> However, i in no way wish to speak for them, or put
> words into their mouths.
> SOM is simply one view the intellect can generate, and
> once generated, it can persist along side other
> intellectual views.
Mike:
You seem to think that I'm trying to define "intellect". I'm not,
because it's already blatantly clear that intellect means a whole mush
of things. I'm not even sure that Bo has really been trying to define
"intellect", except in the narrow sense that "intellect", up until
now, has always been inseparable from the notion of the MOQ's 4th
static level, which is what Bo is really concerned with.
> Mike:
> In other words, I look forward a "life after SOM" for
> intellect.
>
> Mark:
> But Intellect never was regarded as SOM, and
> especially not so in ZMM. If you think it is, then
> please provide a quote? Please? I've been asking
> Botvar the same thing for years without a peep. I do
> not think you will be able to, because there are non.
> There ARE however plenty of ZMM quotes which show
> rationality to be the problem, not intellect.
Mike:
Again, I make no claim, whatsoever, that "intellect" (whatever that
is), is SOM. My claim is that the MOQ can be a lot clearer when we get
rid of the requirement that any definition of the fourth level must be
a definition of "intellect" simply because that's the label Pirsig
chose.
> Mike:
> After all, wasn't Pirsig's mission in ZMM to repair
> intellect, not to leave it behind with SOM and square
> rationality?
>
> Mark:
> No. That is a mistake.
> ZMM did not wish to repair intellect. ZMM wished to
> repair Rationality.
> Rationality is not the Intellect, Rationality is
> generated by the Intellect, which is then used to
> support SOM. This is a very important distinction
Mike interjects:
I've never seen the distinction made before, although I agree that it
might be a good idea to make it.
Mark continued:
> which is supported by quotes from ZMM: ZMM p.240
> "This preintellectual reality is what Phædrus felt he
> had properly identified as Quality. Since all
> intellectually identifiable things must emerge from
> this preintellectual reality, Quality is the parent,
> the source of all subjects and objects."
>
> If we rephrase this sentence we obtain the following
> syllogism without any change of argument:
> 1. Subjects and Objects are intellectually
> identifiable things.
> 2. Intellectually identifiable things emerge from
> preintellectual reality (From the Time lag argument.)
> 3. Therefore, Subjects and Objects emerge from
> Quality.
Mike:
Interestingly, this seems to support Scott's argument that Intellect
is not static at all, but should be equated with DQ.
> Mike:
> I had the idea that Bo was trying to throw intellect
> into the same dungeon as the ugly, square prisoner
> that is SOM.
>
> Mark:
> He is and does. How more simple may that be indicated
> to you by Botvar's acronym: Subject Object Logic As
> Quality's Intellect - SOLAQI?
Mike:
Yeah, this is why I'm suggesting that Bo stops calling it "intellect",
so we get a kind of SOLAQ4 rather than SOLAQI. If he agrees to this,
then we have a good case for saying that Bo has been horribly
misunderstood all along, and all because of this mush called
"intellect".
> To re-cap:
> 1. Intellect generates the rational.
> 2. The rational is used to support SOM.
> 3. SOM persists as an intellectual pattern.
> Your suggestion that the product of rational thought -
> Logic - should be a level in its own right is rather
> like placing Geometry as a level in its own right.
Mike:
Gah, I should have seen in advance that the tentative suggestion of
"logical" as a label for the 4th level would be taken far too
literally. Getting hung-up on the words again...
Regards,
Mike
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 13 2005 - 00:05:33 BST