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

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 18:53:08 BST

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

    Scott

    It is a worthwhile campaign.
    I refer to DQ as unique term that can and should carry
    multiple suggestions.

    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 5:46 AM
    Subject: Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

    > David M,
    >
    >>
    >>> Scott:
    >>> I've got no real quarrel with the general idea here, just that it denies
    >>> intellect the role that you are giving to DQ. As always, I do not
    >>> understand
    >>> the reluctance to refer to that which lays down "high level intellectual
    >>> SQ"
    >>> as intellect. We think. We are not just conduits for some divine force.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> DM: I think a unique term can avoid the built up associations of the old
    >> term,
    >> I agree that DQ implies aspects of agency, value, intellect. I might add
    >> eros, the quality of secondary qualities, etc. Sure we are individuals
    >> and may be in a unique position to think something new, but are we the
    >> author's of this power/capacity? Of course, being inseparable from a
    >> divine power we are identical with it too. Contradictory identity?
    >
    > Scott:
    > Yes. One cannot say that we are divine conduits. One cannot say we are not
    > divine conduits. One cannot say we are and are not divine conduits. One
    > cannot say we neither are nor are not divine conduits.
    >
    > Yes, there are other words, like eros, that one can add to the three that
    > I
    > keep talking about (value, intellect, consciousness) as all being names
    > for
    > the same (non-)thing.
    >
    > I'm not sure what your are referring to as "a unique term" versus "old
    > term", nor about associations. The reason I harp on the "intellect is
    > quality" business is that I think it important that certain associations
    > that, for example, Pirsig holds with the term 'intellect' be broken, and
    > new
    > ones established. It also means that if we want to think about DQ and SQ
    > and
    > how they interoperate, we need only think about our own thinking.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 24 2005 - 20:05:14 BST