Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Fri Sep 30 2005 - 14:15:29 BST

  • Next message: Case: "Re: MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology as harmony."

    [Bo said:]
    > Again the intellectual level as "thinking". Is there anything less
    > static and more dynamic than that? Even Pirsig has rejected
    > thinking as definition for the STATIC intellectual level. (write
    > "static" hundred times on your blackboard!)
    >
    > Scott:
    > Where did he say this? I am curious because I have been saying for a long
    > time that thinking should be considered as DQ, and as far as I can recall,
    > no one has agreed with me. But I do not distinguish significantly between
    > thinking and intellect, so here again we disagree on how to use these
    > terms.

    [Case]
    I always thought Pirsig's use of the levels was more rhetorical than
    absolute. The levels he describes are not as he describes them: discrete.
    This whole four levels things seems to be more of an obstical to recognizing
    the interplay of dynamic and static values than a knife for cutting through
    the Gordian knot they weave.

    > Bo said:
    > And then this
    > pompous term "mathematics" as if we are to prostrate ourselves
    > in front of it. It's just another form of calculation? And does not
    > 2+2 require thinking? You too seem to have fallen into the
    > intelligence pit, or maybe never been out of it.
    >
    > Most friendly but I can't resist a bit sarcasm.
    >
    > Scott:
    > What is pompous about it? Meanwhile, how about addressing the issue that
    > mathematics raises, namely intellectual activity that is not divided into
    > S
    > and O. (And, yes, I am definitely in the intelligence pit, as you put
    > it.)

    [Case]
    I thought this observation was among the most astute I have seen here. What
    you originally said was, 'in mathematics there is no S/O divide (since the
    thinking is the mathematics -- there is no object separate from the thinking
    that the thinking is about)."
    Isn't that because the language of mathematics is aimed at eliminating the
    metaphorical quality of everyday language? Or is it because it is composed
    of metaphors of extraordinary precision? I for one would like to see you
    elaborate on this. I can't help but add that when I do math there are
    objects separate from the thinking because I have to show my work and carry
    my ones but that's just me.

    Case

    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 Sep 30 2005 - 15:02:20 BST