From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 18:37:06 BST
Hi
perhaps language needs to be seen in a broader sense,
where does information become a language?
Do genes use a language, do particles exchange packets
of language? Perhaps there is perhaps a continuum and
we are mistaken to limit the idea of langauge to our abstract version
where we have separated the activity from the meaning.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: MD The S/O divide
> Hi Jonathan.
>
> On 19 Sep. you wrote:
> > Bo, we need to characterize YOUR "Q-intellect", and see how it
> > measures up against Pirsig's concept of intellectual patterns.
>
> Accepted.
>
> > Contrary to what you say, we sill have to attempt to define the terms
> > using language - that's what definitions are.
>
> Yes, language has been used for "descriptions" and a billion other
> purposes since it is appeared on the evolutionary stage. In SOM it
> has assumed the same role as mind, Niels Bohr's: "Everything is
> suspended in language" is SOM's (idealist): "Everything is in (our)
> minds".
>
> But if the MOQ is to replace SOM, none of the the latter's "views" can
> be retained - least of all the said of language-as-mind. This has
> become my "stone tablet", but it is not heeded, "mind" has even
> become Q-intellect itself, the level from where an "abstract" linguistic
> picture of everything else is painted.
>
> Language was the social pattern that DQ "hijacked" for its ride to
> intellect and is now part of every intellectual pattern in the same way
> that inorganic carbon is part of every biological organism. Still where
> we manage to separate life from carbon, we seem incapable of
> distinguishing INTELLECT from LANGUAGE (in its mind capacity).
>
> > You don't help any by
> > throwing in a new vocabulary (Q-evolution? your post of 14 Sep 2003)
> > as if it means something!
>
> I just tired of referring to the static development. "Q-evolution" is
> merely this growth. Nothing more.
>
> > I think that the problem is that you fail to distinguish between
> > REASON and RATIONALITY. I've hammered away at this for a long time
> > (e,g, see my reply to you last year on this same subject:
> > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0207/0354.html
>
> -----Comments to the above mentioned message --------
>
> Jonathan:
> > Bo, I think we are on the same wavelength - nobody else seems to
understand
> > what I don't like about the intellectual LEVEL. I don't deny the
existence
> > of Intellect per se, but I find enormous difficulties in giving it its
own
> > level.
>
> Great about our common wavelength, but what "intellect" is it you
> don't like? The Lila Child variety or the LILA (dictionary) one? Update
> me.
>
> Jonathan:
> > But Bo, I do see the virtue of SOLAQI. I think SOL is a very large part
of
> > intellect.
>
> The S/O "..a very large part of intellect"! But what is it a great part
of??
> That's the question.
>
> > SOL, as the main component of rational thought is clearly the
> > major player in the construction and analysis of the MoQ.
>
> Then, if I may sum up, you agree that the S/O-rationality is Q-intellect
> (a large part at least) and that the MOQ is "out of" intellect.
Rationality
> "a major player ..etc). That's as close as you can come without
> declaring total agreement :-), but trust Jonathan ;-) .....
>
> > .........However, I think
> > that there is more to reason than that.
>
> In my lis - Interaction-Sensation-Emotion-Reason - the last rhymed
> better than "rationality", but is merely a characterization of (the value
> of) distinguishing between what is objective and what is subjective.
>
> > I've often said that one can follow
> > a logical/dialectical thought process all the way to absurdity.
>
> No doubt.
>
> > However, we have an inherent ability to look at the product of logic and
say
> > "that just isn't reasonable" (which is why people are good at picking up
> > massive computer errors!!!).
>
> Yes, but the VALUE of reason/rationality is ineradicable.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 19:34:01 BST