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

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 18:36:17 BST

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD Experience before intellect"

    Scott

    well I have always agreed that creative thinking
    is a form of DQ, but as it is adopted by others we
    can call it SQ, although when a student understands
    something for the first time they make a creative leap
    to do so, the pass over the subject-object-subject divide, something
    Roy Bhaskar points out a lot.

    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 6:29 AM
    Subject: Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

    > Bo,
    >
    > Scott said:
    >> What's ironic is that I have from the first time I heard of SOLAQI
    >> agreed with it that the value of the intellectual level in its origin
    >> lay with the S/O divide. Where we disagree is whether that is the
    >> whole of intellect.
    >
    > Bo said:
    > The value of the intellectual level the S/O, but maybe not the
    > whole of intellect??????? I don't get that. It's like saying that
    > biological value is life, but maybe there's more to biology than
    > life. There is ONE value to one level, that's whole idea with
    > levels. Countless sub-patterns naturally, but they are just variants
    > of the root value.
    >
    > Scott:
    > That's why I inserted "in its origin". Intellect arose in Greece and
    > elsewhere because the thinker started seeing himself *as* a thinker,
    > separate from the rest of the universe. But when the thinker starts
    > thinking
    > about thinking, and the S/O divide that made it possible, then the
    > division
    > becomes questionable, and has in fact been questioned from the start. Yet
    > it
    > is still intellect that is doing this questioning. Before nominalism
    > reared
    > its ugly head, the question had a fairly decent answer, namely that the
    > thinker and that which is thought about shared (participated) in a common
    > intellect. By the time of Descartes, this was lost.
    >
    > So what this means is that historically, intellect, which is universal,
    > became active in the human individual through the S/O divide. This
    > "becoming
    > active in the human individual" is what I mean by the fourth level, hence
    > I
    > agree that the S/O divide is what made the fourth level happen. From that
    > point on we disagree.
    >
    > Scott continued:
    >> Which means that I prefer using 'intellect' in one
    >> way and you in another. For example, I include mathematics in
    >> intellect, and 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). I don't think it is a matter of
    >> misunderstanding.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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.)
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 21:28:05 BST