Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD SOLAQI confirmed?"
JoVo, Paul, and all logicians.
18 JoVo wrote:
> Bo said:
> Many speak about an 'intellect' that precedes the level, but all
> other levels are identical with their respective value. Anyway, you
> agreed that the Greek experience=the emergence of the intellectual
> level, and as it also is the emergence of SOM ...you affirm the
> SOLAQI.
> JoVo:
> I did not agree! At this point, I would have pointed to the logic of
> your deducing, but Paul have answered this already much better than I
> could have done. *
Paul's logic that you find so good had this form (17 Jan.)
> Life began with viruses
> Human beings are a form of life
> Therefore, human beings are viruses
The purpose of this is to lay the premises for proving me silly.
> In your case, your argument goes like this:
> Western intellectual patterns began with SOM
> X is a western intellectual pattern
> Therefore, X is SOM
My claim is:
1) ZMM describes the emergence of SOM with the Greeks.
2) LILA and all Pirsig says conveys the impression that the
intellectual level emerged with the Greeks!
3) Intellect=SOM.
Admittedly # 2 is the crux and everybody is free to say "no"
regardless, but the logic is flawless and as JoVo agreed to it ...!
Now, in the letter to Paul, Pirsig says that the intellectual level is
best seen as emerging with the Greeks, this formulation leaves
an impression of an intellect before the Greeks, but this leads to
eternal regress. The intellectual level must emerge along with
intellectual value. Can we agree on that?
"Western intellectual patterns"? There is Martian soil, but it is Q-
inorganic, we can't speak about a Martian inorganic LEVEL.
Small chance, but if there is life there it is Q-biology. Should it be
advanced enough to have reached the social stage (no chance)
their communities will be Q-social. Even Martian intellect must be
Q-intellect.
NB. The Q .... just means the level, no added B-content ;-).
The point in the letter about the Orientals having developed (an?)
intellectual level in the Upanishads period is highly interesting
and - as said - I would have liked to have Pirsig elaborate.
Paul:
> The conclusion of your argument - SOM=Intellect - is often your
> premise, this is evident whenever we see this - Intellect (SOM) - when
> you are debating the definition of intellect.
I started from your premises and arrived at S/O=intellect
conclusion ...because #2 was so compelling.
IMO
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
: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 08:52:28 GMT