Re: MD S/O-intellect or thinking-intellect?

From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 12:24:58 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "MD Biographcal Detail"

    Everyone!
    Earlier I have suggested that Squonk's rage was due to his sensing
    that the S/O interpretation somehow violates DQ (as he sees it) but he
    rejects this explanation. It's now his aesthetical sense that is hurt, yet,
    it was these words of his that released my new approach.

    > ..........................Skutvik turns this around - his doctrine
    > asserts that subjects and objects are required for intellect.

    I was reflecting on this twisting my argument out of shape. It is of
    course the opposite way: Intellectual value is required for subjects and
    objects.

    sq: Intellect has been around for tens of thousands of years. Intellect is an
    aesthetic sense - a relationship to DQ. Subjects and objects are an artistic
    creation of the intellect.

    I came to think about ZMM when young Phaedrus agonized
    over the fundamentals of existence. At that point he had not
    conceived of the MOQ - not even reached the Quality insight and was
    thus totally immersed in SOM. In retrospect, however, we see that he
    was struggling with the reality which was to become the intellectual
    level. Now, remember the first night on the trip when he told Chris that
    he once knew a character who was out to give REASON a good
    trashing? In other words Phaedrus' first enemy was reason which was
    later to turn into SOM, then - even later - did he arrive at the insight
    that ...."Quality (pre-intellectual) creates subjects and objects".

    sq: Rational thought is derived from symbolic manipulation of symbols. Its a
    particular method, not intellect itself. Being a method it is art. You don't
    need subjects and objects to do maths or geometry and Scott asserts this, as
    does Mr, Pirsig. You're not doing very well are you? Maybe its time for that
    essay of yours.

    Much later came the final MOQ in which pre-inorganic Quality creates
    inorganic values, pre-biological .....etc upwards, ending with pre-
    intellectual Quality creating subjects and objects ...i.e: the S/O reality.

    sq: Pre-intellectual Quality is an aesthetic sense. It can artistically
    create subjects and objects and all manner of conceptualisations. Its all
    intellect. As i said, intellect is required in order to invent subjects and objects.

    PS
    Upon returning I see that Rick somehow anticipates the ZMM point by
    referring to the Pirsig letter to Anthony. But Rick sees the snag and
    tries to solve it by suggesting an extra intellect. He says: "This
    pre/post-intellectual divide sits prior to all of the levels". Yes and yes
    again, but that which is not static is dynamic, so what forced young
    Phaedrus to the quality insight was DQ itself!!! ....or his logic, or his
    intelligence both of which are terms that can be made into
    metaphysics similar to the MOQ.

    sq: The Quality insight as you call it was given to Phaedrus by a gate
    keeper. It was already there and it was given to him out of the blue. His
    rationality was destroyed by the gift. This completely knocks your daft notions on the
    head doesn't it Skutvik?

    But Quality is best, let there be no doubt about that.

    > Rick:
    > Quality is the "pre-intellectual" reality. All four levels exist
    > "post-intellectually". But note that in this sense, "intellectual" is NOT
    > the same as the level of the MoQ called "intellectual" (which, to Pirsig,
    > is a further subdivision of the category called 'subjects'). This
    > pre/post-intellectual divide sits prior to all of the levels

    Don't you all see what a mess we create of the MOQ if we retain the
    least vestige of SOM by making all levels "intellectual" - in the "in the
    mind" sense? I am of course wildly opposed to Jonathan (will answer
    him later) but grateful for him making it clear where we end starting on
    that path. I wonder for instance why Platt is shocked by Jonathan's
    assertion, it's a logical conclusion after all. The original MOQ rid
    existence of SOM's paradoxes and now so many are happy to
    introduce them into the MOQ. Why? The Quality Idea is an enormous
    leap forward, but if it's not made completely it becomes a travesty.

    sq: I can see you have made a complete horlicks out the MoQ for the last ten
    years. Your bid for immortality may be helped along its way by giving us all
    an essay?

    PPS:
    Scott is demolishing Squonkstail and I'll just damage his effort by
    commenting, also, DMB's rock solid defences of the Social reality is at
    least a common cause, I don't dare to ask for his commitment to the
    S/O intellect, but the new quotes and comments he has presented
    points in that direction!

    Sincerely
    Bo

    sq: I think you will find, if you read Scott carefully, that he says you dont
    need subjects and objects to do maths.
    squonk

    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 -

    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 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 12:27:05 BST