From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jan 23 2004 - 09:16:59 GMT
Everyone.
18 Jan. Steve wrote .
> I still don't like "value of X" formulations for the reasons I've
> given,
The value of X ...as characteristic for intellect is what you don't
like? OK I understand. Starting with the inorganic level what we
call matter IS inorganic value, but as matter=inorganic we have a
"value of value" - in avery subtle form admittedly. Likewise for
the biological level where life is self-evident. It's origin may pose
an enigma but not for knowing the difference between life and
death.
But the social stage requires some more scrutiny. I have been
with this discussion since its start and don't remember all our
meanderings (ha!) but the social level have been a bone of
dispute several times. Its start, what it embraces and what
characterizes/defines it. Here you have been active so you know
that there has been a search for a value of X.
Pirsig has said that it is meaningless to speak of societies other
than the human kind, as he says that it isn't useful to speak of
intellect before the Greeks and one may compare these two
statements in the way that "intellect" before the intellectual plays
the same role as societies before the human beings. And yet....it
does not solve the "other intellectual levels" mystery: Pre-social
society - be it ape colonies or wolf packs - is still the value of
communal existence ("behavior" in your book maybe?) and pre-
intellectual intellect is still the value of intellect X (whatever the
definition).
OK, now I am into THAT.
> but I think that if you think of intellect as the value of
> truth instead of the value of S/O we would be likely to agree in our
> classifications of intellectual patterns as we seem to for inorganic
> and biological patterns.
Instead of....? The value of truth does not cover it. As said,
people of before the intellectual LEVEL knew the lie/truth
distinction, but NOT the "objective knowledge /subjective
opinion" distinction. There were no skeptics who - when the tribe
elder told that the stars above were their forebears ...or
something to that effect - stepped forward and said "is this
objectively true or ...etc. I could embroider it, but you see what I
mean? It was when the early Greeks started to doubt the myths
that the intellectual level was born.
> That would be a big step forward and enough
> agreement to allow us to move on to applying the MOQ to moral
> questions.
Definitely.
Me earlier:
> >and this is the S/O intellect in a
> > weaker form (the "true" can be shuffled around). But maybe we
> > are approaching some common ground.
Steve:
> I hope so. Even if not, I've enjoyed our discussion.
Definitely so!, but I believe that the trouble with intellect has its
origin in the unresolved "platypus" INTELLIGENCE. The amazing
capacity of animals (below both intellect and society) up to "idiots
savants" to do the most fantastic calculatins in split seconds. You
certainly know some examples, they are legio. Where is this to
be placed in the MOQ. To me it sounds as if it is this intelligence
that many call "intellect". What do you think? ....Everybody!
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 : Fri Jan 23 2004 - 09:18:12 GMT