From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 07:24:36 GMT
David M. and Discourse
31 Dec. you said:
> -taken this over to the discuss area as I have gone
> bit off the original subject:
> I have no doubt that we are attacking the same
> thing, I was only trying to check where you were
> coming from and cover the idealist side. I am very
> happy to switch to the SQ/DQ dualism rather than SO.
> I am happy to talk about an intellectual level in as
> far as this is full of static patterns, i.e various communicable
> ideas/theories/etc and that has its associated value.
That the static intellectual level contains intellectual patterns and
that those patterns aught to be communicable and have value is
obvious, but that intellectual value reside in their being "ideas/
theories" is my eternal complaint.
I believe that biological value is that of being alive, and that social
patterns are just as easily defined by being beneficial for the
individuals concerned. As easy discernible is the MOQ tenet of the
upper level's "control" of the parent level regarding the lower levels,
but for intellect neither the first nor the second trait can be found
regarding the current definition(s).
In his letter to Paul Turner, Pirsig managed to suspend it all in mid-
air; on one hand the "manipulation of symbols" definition that
sends intellect into the remote past and on the other speaking
(correctly) about Ancient Greece as the its cradle. After this those
who have had opinions have fallen silent (except me and my trusty
critic Mark).
> But it
> is, of course, also on the move,
Yes, but first some more preliminaries. From pre-historic times
humans have constructed world-views - it's the human hallmark -
but these we call myths because they were not based on
OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE and this says it all. Intellect has its
origin with the advent of the subject/object divide. All this is
described in the ZMM passage starting with:
"One must first get over the idea that the time span between
the last caveman and the first Greek philosopher was short ..."
ending with the conclusion ...
"What is essential to understand at this point is that until now
there was no such thing as mind and matter, subject and object,
form and substance .."
The S/O-intellect had no clean-cut start, Plato's Shadows/Ideas
bears little resemblance to it, but already with Aristotle's
Substance/Form we see its outline, but only with Descartes did it
reach its apex. For your benefit the subjective half has also been
explored and has proliferated into a host of "idealist" theories, but
let's keep the general outline clear.
> for example, the MOQ
> as a theory has emerged. But also existentialism, Bergson,
> Whitehead of course. These are intellectual achievements
> but are not easily or completely associated with SOM.
> Does this fall in with what you are saying?
But before we know what VALUE characterizes intellect it is
impossible to say what the MOQ is - a "good" intellectual pattern
or a "rebel" one. We know what philosophers Pirsig refers to in his
work and (your) Whitehead, Bergson, Heidegger are not among
them. And if existentialism can be said to be a parallel or
forerunner for the MOQ ...maybe?
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 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 06:25:57 GMT