Re: MD SOLAQI confirmed?

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jan 21 2004 - 07:08:56 GMT

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD Europe vs USA"

    Hi Scott.

    18 Jan. you wrote:

    > Mathematics is not S/O because there is no object separate from the
    > mathematical thinking, so there is no subject thinking about an
    > object. Instead, the thinking is all there is. If you say that the
    > thinking is about, say, numbers, then you are confusing a
    > metamathematical statement with the mathematical.

    As I hold that the static intellectual level (Q-intellect) is the S/O
    distinction, we sort of agree. Calculation has nothing to do with
    intellectual value, it is simply INTELLIGENCE, a faculty
    employed by ALL static levels. Social age people calculated
    without calling it anything, but with the Greeks and the intellectual
    level it got its fancy names of geometry, arithmetics, algebra that
    makes us stoop and bow and consider a blackboard filled with
    inscrutable symbols to be the epitome of "intellect".

    Your "..no object separate from the mathematical thinking ...etc."
    may be correct enough, but these subtleties are something
    developed through thousands of years of splitting the S/O into
    finer and finer parts, The avent Q-intellect was in a muh "coarser"
    form, namely the search for "..what is independent of what
    anyone thinks about it". (ZMM 368) Calculation - now called
    mathematics - was naturally employed in the new-fangled search
    for "...what is imperishable in the affairs of man" (366) ..for
    "Immortal Principles". And numbers were long considered part of
    this immortal, imperishable truths. Of course numbers and the
    manipulation of them had no subject or object attached to them.
    No-one spoke about subjects and objects until God knows when,
    but this was the S/O distinction's origin.

    > By the way, I consider the MOQ to be an S/O theory, since it is
    > *about* morality and human beings and the universe. So I guess I
    > disagree with Paul (since I call it S/O, albeit not SOM), and with Bo
    > (since I consider it as an intellectual product.)

    It's positive that you disagree with Paul. I can only add that the
    MOQ is S/Oish in the sense of being "out of" Intellect (but not
    subordinate to it).

    Yours always.
    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 Jan 21 2004 - 07:10:16 GMT