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

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 18:10:30 BST

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    On 23 Oct 2005 at 22:11, Scott Roberts wrote:

    > Bo said:
    > Can't you see that you are caught in the mind-idea world of the
    > Greeks and that the MOQ is the first ever break-out from that
    > confinement? And that Pirsig will not think like Barfield or Dewey or
    > what names you have dropped since you began. I am however pleased that
    > you and Mr. Maxwell have "found each other".

    > Scott:
    > I see no evidence in, say, Plotinus, that he thought in terms of "a
    > mind that thinks".

    Plotinus is regarded a neo-platonist which fits, in ZMM Pirsig says
    that's the mind/matter world (SOM) emerged with the Greeks, at
    first as a search for eternal principles, but Anaxagoras was ...
    (ZMM p 366)

        "...the first to identify the One as NOUS, meaning "mind".

    and Parmenides:

        "...made it clear for the first time that the immoral
        principle, the one, truth,god is separate from appearance
        and from opinion, and the importance of this separation
        and its effect upon subsequent history cannot be
        overstated..."

    Thus, naturally, those thinkers did not speak of a "mind that
    thinks", this is how the mind/matter split came to be. Pirsig's idea
    is that from then on, this "nous" became existence's REAL
    component while the rest were appearances. (I can't go through it
    all, but with Plato it became Ideas/Appearances with Aristotle
    Substance/Appearances, much later the Mind (or Intellect) that
    sees all these contexts and even all the SOM spin-offs).

    These eternal dualities is MOQ's intellectual level in my SOLopinion.

    > For Plotinus, the first emanation from the One was
    > Intellect (nous),

    As said being neo-latonist it looks familiar. If he is your man you
    have returned to SOM's roots

    > not Something That Thinks. Nor did Hegel or
    > Coleridge, so I hardly think of the MOQ as the "first ever". In fact,
    > I don't think that was much of a confinement at all. I don't assume a
    > "mind that thinks" either, and I wonder where you get the idea that I
    > do.

    I get it from your repeated statements, for instance this to Ian
    Glendinning (Oct.17):

        "..... what intellect means to me, namely, the creating and
        manipulating of, and reflection on, symbolic SQ".

    You use the perfunctory "Q" terms, but it sounds like intellect
    creates and manipulates "symbolic static quality" which means
    that all static levels are intellectual patterns.

    > I just assume "thinking",

    Right: All is thoughts.

    > and that it will always shake out in a
    > dynamic/static manner (though one can use other word pairs as well,
    > including S/O[2], though not S/O[1]).

    Trust Scott to add something cryptic.

    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 : Mon Oct 24 2005 - 18:33:21 BST