From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 05:23:25 BST
Scott and the Lot.
You said:
> I think this clarifies a lot, but I am not clear on what you are
> getting at when you say:
Me prev.
> > "I simply can't understand the annotating Pirsig about the MOQ being a
> > pattern of its own intellectual pattern"
Maybe my last for David (and you) clarified things further, but if you
can stand any more .....You said:
> On the one hand, the MOQ is a set of static intellectual patterns
> (those expressed in the book LILA), or it is ... what? (Or maybe, I
> don't understand what the annotating Pirsig says. I see no immediate
> problem of regress with a static intellectual pattern being about
> static intellectual patterns. That is what logic studies.)
That the MOQ started in Intellect and may still be there (as an
unassimilated pattern) I accept, but it is the statement that Q-intellect
is "the exact equivalent of mind" and its patterns are "thoughts" that I
question. I even question if mind and/or thinking makes any sense at
all within MOQ's grater framework - except as the VALUE of dividing
reality into thoughts versus real world. Look to Sam and DMB on
Wittgenstein about language's role in creating the illusion of a mind
realm different from the real world.
You see no problems with the MOQ being "an intellectual pattern"?
Hmm. To me it's the "container problem"; the whole MOQ supposed
to be contained inside a smaller box of one of its lesser parts and
looks like a logical bend and makes me postulate the MOQ as a
"rebel" 4th or budding 5th level. (whatever is acceptable) because this
makes the MOQ contained in itself which is "allowed" in my opinion.
> I am also not convinced that SOL is the precise right term for the
> fourth level.
Its title - Intellect - is perfectly OK with me, it's the thinking definition I
object to.
> I agree that one should not look for something that
> includes DQ, but I still see mathematics as not falling under SOL,
> other than if one hasn't learned to think in general with S/O logic,
> then one can't do mathematics.
Why mathematics is such an obstacle for your accepting the S/O-
defined intellect is because you can't leave the "thinking" premises. If
one for a moment lets go of SOM and its thinking-vs-real-world and
looks back at the age when the social level was top notch and
language its most advanced pattern its internal "logic" (grammar,
syntax) led to algebra, but this doesn't necessarily mean Q-intellect.
Pythagoras "lost in thoughts" over number mystery was no different
from a stone age person "lost in awe" under the mysterious starry sky.
This is INTELLIGENCE which is a facet of DQ and spreads across
the whole static spectrum.
> But in the doing of mathematics itself
> there are no subjects and objects
Exactly! .
> as there are when doing science or
> SOM philosophy. Overall, though, I think this exception is not that
> important, relative to the importance of the S/O divide.
Mathematics is (part of) language and as such started as serving
social purpose, then followed it into intellect and HERE serves
intellectual purpose (as in science) To ask what mathemathics is in
itself is as futile as asking what language is in itself. Scott, let me try a
totally different more "cultural" approach to try to show what S/O-value
is and why I see it as Q-intellect.
In ancient - "social level" - times there was no irrational/rational
distinction. What we call 'mysterious' or 'magical' was an integrated
part of the total experience; the dead were living in another world, it
was possible to "persuade" reality to yield to one's wishes by rituals
....etc. Existence was animated as we say. To them such terms had
no meaning of course; It was THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL which
hammered the irrational/rational, subjective/objective wedge through
this holistic existence and created a new reality of mind and matter of
subjective thoughts different from the objective world. This must be
understood to understand why a definition of Q-intellect supposed to
cover "non-S/O thinking" is counter to the MOQ. Intellect IS the
"thinking/world" distinction itself!
Sincerely
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 Jul 23 2003 - 05:24:09 BST