LS Re: SOM and the intellect

From: yummy@netfront.net
Date: Thu Sep 09 1999 - 16:40:01 BST


Hi Squad

>Seen in the light of the MOQ, what is it that was
>described in the last part of ZMM (the Greeks).
>Is it the emergence of the subject-object metaphysics,
>the "coming of age" of the Intellectual level or ...?

Surveying the responses it seems we all agree that the Greeks marked an
emergence of the subject-object metaphysics. With their separation of
rhetoric from dialectic and the good from the true they forced the
subjective to be separate and inferior to the objective. This leads to a
metaphysics where subjects occupy a world that is separate and
irreconcilable with the world of objects.

We all also seem to agree that while the Greeks were the main villains, the
idea was probably born a long time before and gradually worked its way into
the culture. Language because of its habit of making distinctions between
objects was probably the initial cause of this (as we discussed in the early
days of the LS http://www.moq.org/old_lilasquad/9709/0039.html).

Nor do I think anyone disagrees that while the Greeks were pivotal to the
idea, it took a lot longer for it to flourish, it could also have arisen in other
cultures independently and it was arguably not until
Descartes that the subject-object metaphysics really arrived.

Was it the "coming of age" of the Intellectual level?

Bodvar would have us believe that it was. He quotes a letter from Pirsig

>This emergence of the intellectual level is most
>closely associated in my mind with the ancient Greek
>philosophers and particularly Socrates who
>continually pitted truth against social conformity.
>This seems why they killed him"

If the intellectual level and the SOM emerged at the same time, does that
make them the same thing?

No, not good enough. The subject-object metaphysics may just have been the
first intellectual pattern. The intellectual level may actually have been
born first and they just both came of age at the same time. The intellectual
level may have evolved in many cultures and it just happens that in Greece
it was associated with the subject-object metaphysics.

Bo's second argument is his "grand sweep"

>Let me make a grand sweep. Let's assume that the Greek
>experience as described in the ZAMM was Q-Intellect (as such, not
>merely the scientific pattern) confronting Q-Society, you seem to see
>it that way. That the same event can be seen as the advent of
>subject-object metaphysics is affirmed by David L. and these two
>put together mathematically makes the static intellectual level
>identical to SOM.

He then goes on to offer advantages of thinking like this. (But why should
we consider the advantages? Are we to accept it because it would be useful
if we did? That's not a good reason.)

Bo says it will provide us with the much sought for transformation procedure
between the two metaphysics. Do we need one Bo? Why? Where are your
examples?

Next is the problem that SOM is merely one intellectual pattern and the MOQ
is another intellectual pattern. Bo thinks that the MOQ cannot contain the
intellectual level which contains the MOQ which contains the intellectual
level ...

But, Bo, the MOQ is just a metaphysics - a map of reality. If I draw a map,
say, of my desk and everything on it including the map, then the map would
include the map. I don't see a problem with that.

So, I find the prosecution has presented inconclusive evidence.

However. The question is interesting. It's not enough for me to answer it
just by saying Bo hasn't proved it. I feel I have to say why it's wrong and
in order to do that I need to know what's right.

I keep asking myself, what is the key to the intellectual level?

I see two aspects to it. The first is the values of the intellectual level,
namely freedom, democracy, human rights. To me these seem to arise from the
idea of the Subject as the starting place of reality and the most important
value of all.

The second is reason. How do I define reason? Uh, <reaches for dictionary>
"intellectual faculty by which conclusions are drawn from premises" "express
in logical or argumentative form" ugh, let's try logic: "a science of
reasoning", "use of or ability in argument", okay, argue: "maintain by
reasoning". Great. Apparently the Oxford dictionary doesn't know what reason
is. Oh for goodness sake, I'll do it myself.

If there are no camels in Germany, are there camels in Berlin? Reason says
no. Why? Because Berlin is in Germany so a fact that applies to Germany also
applies to Berlin. Why? Because you cannot have two truths about the same
thing. Why? Because there is only one truth.

Is that the essence of reason? There is only one truth. Is that the
fundamental principle on which reason is based? If that's so then the
truth/good split is the intellectual level. (Whether or not it first
emerged in Greece is a separate question.)

I worry about causation a lot too. Why does there always have to be a why?
Causation assumes that things happen linearly, one after the other.
Even concepts must come one after the other. Why? Because there is only one
 way of things? That seems to come down to one truth as well.

>Seen in the light of the MOQ, what is it that was
>described in the last part of ZMM (the Greeks).
>Is it the emergence of the subject-object metaphysics,
>the "coming of age" of the Intellectual level or ...?

Well, if the intellectual level is the One Truth and the truth/good split is
the flip side of the subject/object split then that would mean the intellectual
level is the subject-object metaphysics so the answer would be both of them.

:-o

Diana

"Never trust a spiritual master who can't dance" - Mr Miyagi

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:50 GMT