From: -Peter (pcorteen@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 17 2005 - 10:59:10 GMT
I think; not even the inorganic level is purely static and not even the most
spontanious flashlight of an idea entirely dynamic. Nothing lasts forever,
but nothing ever dies out completely.
-Pete
On 16/11/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> Bo,
>
> Some obvious objections:
>
> Bo said:
> Different premises can give rise to different conclusion without
> logic itself being faulty. I should have used "subject/object
> premises" to delineate the intellectual level.
>
> Scott:
> This would make all philosophers (except Descartes) non-intellectual,
> since
> philosophers are those who question premises. I think you have a valid
> point
> that most people most of the time act as if S/O[1] were true, that that is
> their premise (what philosophers call the "natural attitude"). There is
> also
> a valid point (shared with Barfield) that intellect and S/O[1] dualism
> arose
> together (that S/O makes intellect possible in human development). But it
> is
> also the intellect that can question the natural S/O attitude, and has,
> and
> has proposed different premises, and can lead us out of the natural S/O
> attitude. The MOQ is only a recent example of this questioning and attempt
> at replacement. Thus I think you could justifiably say that the S/O[1]
> premises are the basis of the fourth level, but it is silly to call it the
> intellectual level. Intellect has the capability of transcending all
> levels
> (all premises).
>
> Bo said:
> To expand logic itself is hardly possible but shifting premises
> (that logic uses to arrive at conclusions) is possible, and my - um
> - logic is that the different Q-levels can be regarded as different
> "premises".
>
> Scott:
> Which puts logic outside of all levels, which must make it part of DQ.
>
> Bo said (to Rebecca):
> Yes you are right, SOL says that S/O is the 4th level's premises,
> thus MOQ's DQ/SQ premises is something beyond, and for
> goodness sake Rebecca the 4th level is supposed to be STATIC.
> The tendency to regard it as a mental compartment where an
> endless succession of ideas fights for the top perch is
> inconsistent with anything static.
>
> Scott:
> Isn't the word for "fighting for ideas", which is anything but static,
> intellect?
>
> Bo said:
> Yes from the said Q-premises which sees intellect for what it
> really is: Just another static level.
>
> Scott:
> So do you claim that Pirsig used something other than intellect to come up
> with the MOQ? Or must we treat the MOQ as revelation?
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG <http://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
>
>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peter Corteen Home: +44 (0)208-882-7898 Mobile: +44 (0)776-667-1194 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 Nov 17 2005 - 12:03:59 GMT