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

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 09:07:55 BST

  • Next message: Case: "RE: MD Chaos and its role in Evolution"

    Hi Scott

    23 Oct.you wrote:

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

    Plotinus is a neo-platonist, in ZMM the reasoning is that the
    subject/object world view emerged with the ancient Greek
    thinkers. This went through several stages, but wasn't close to the
    "mind/matter" variety, rather a search for eternal principles
    beyond the mythological reality. 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..."

    As said those thinkers did not speak of a subject or mind, the
    idea is that these principles be they "water" (Thales), Air
    (Anaximenes) "numbers" (Pythagoras) "fire" (Heraclitus) ....etc.
    were regarded as something beyond both humans and gods.

    I can't go through it all, but with Socrates it had become
    Truth/Opinion, with Plato Ideas/Appearances, with Aristotle
    Substance/Appearances, only much later did the mind that
    observes naturlal constants occur (Descartes) and the many spin-
    offs.

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

    Of course Plotinus saw the first emanation from the One (God) as
    "nous" his was Medieval times. This is my very point: If we allow
    SOM or intellect's view of itself we get mind, but what we want is
    the MOQ's view of intellect which is the mind/matter distinction.
    Will you ever get this?

    > 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.

    Hegel and Coleridge!? All Western philosophy after Plato has
    been footnotes to him, how can they apply in a MOQ discussion?

    > I don't
    > assume a "mind that thinks" either, and I wonder where you get the
    > idea that I do.

    Maybe "mind AND thinking" confuses, but you postulate intellect
    as where all emanates from. For example this to Ian
    Glendinning (Oct.17):

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

    You use some perfunctory "Q" terms, but it sounds like intellect
    creates and manipulates and reflects on "symbolic static quality"
    which means that all static levels are thoughts.

    > 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, but I implore you to
    contemplate my point that intellect regards itself as from where
    everything emanates, while it from a MOQ view is THE VALUE
    of the distinction between the said intellect and what emanates
    from it.

    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 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 09:17:17 BST