From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 08:41:52 GMT
Scott and MD
16 Nov. you wrote:
> 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 know your different S/Os, but I stick to the SOM that emerged
as described in ZMM to which Descartes added its last twist; the
mind/matter one.
(Scott)
> 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).
Good! "Making intellect possible in human development" is jus a
complicated way of saying that intellect=SOM.
(Scott)
> 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.
I agree. It's a Quality tenet that all levels evolved to a point
when one of its patterns "took off on a purpose of its own" to a
new level, thus it necessarily had to the be an intellectual
pattern that initially "proposed different premises" and in my
opinion the MOQ began as an intellectual - SOM-based -
theory, but got out of intellect's control and is now forming a
meta-reality wherein SOM is its top static level - and
where its own "empty shell" resides.
NB!
It looks like the "intellectual level" existed before the MOQ, but it
is of course only in a MOQ retrospect this context is established.
The Quality Idea of Phaedrus in the late fifties did neither
challenge Intellect nor SOM, it challenged REASON itself.
(Scott)
> 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).
I don't know what taboo is attached to the term "intellect" in the
English/American language? I have repeatedly referred to my
dictionary, and will test it on you. It says:
"The power of mind to reason, contrasted with feelings
and instinct"
The "power of mind" we may drop for what is not power of mind?
Left is "REASON pitted against EMOTIONS" and as the latter is
the very essence of subjectivity and reason is the
essence of objectivity ..... Ipso facto.
(Scott)
> 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.
I seldom refer to DQ, but it may be said to employ whatever
static qualities there are to escape stability, thus after (social)
language and intellect "hijacking" language for its own purpose,
DQ now makes use of language's logic concept.
> 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?
I'll have to understand this first before answering.
> 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?
As said before, even if the MOQ is no level it shows some
level traits in it relationship with intellect. So your question
pertains to the general mystery what makes ANY level escape its
parent level? "Objectively" (intellectually) seen it's plain
impossible, but as reality shows (levels or not) life made it out of
matter so Pirsig merely postulates a relentless dynamic tug.
Phaedrus' first quality notion was an all-intellectual pattern, but it
was caught by the dynamic tug and carried forward. So Pirsig
definitely used something more than intellect or - better -
something more used Pirsig.
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 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 08:47:39 GMT