From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Nov 28 2005 - 08:28:02 GMT
Dear Antagonist.
26 Nov. Paul Turner wrote:
Bo earlier:
> >How can you misunderstand so grossly? Or maybe it's an
> >inevitable result from our different premises. I see things from the
> >MOQ premises beyond the static hierarchy, while you stay inside it at
> >the the 4th level - and the twain shall never match.
> Paul: No, I'm starting from your premises. Here you say that
> intellect sees itself as "objectivity itself" but in the past, to
> address idealism, the Sophists and pragmatism, you have said that
> these are examples of intellect's "subjective over objective"
> formulation.
I'm not sure you start from my premises which is that the 4th
level is the value of the S/O distinction. As you will know ZMM's
thesis is that SOM's first stage was the Truth/Opinion distinction
with Socrates (according to Plato) regarding himself as the
defender of truth and the Sophists as peddlers of mere opinion.
As Mike maintains only with the Renaissance (in moqish the
resumption of SOM [IMO that of the intellectual level]) do we see
the S/O outline in the "internal/external" shape, and only now
emotions are denounced because they are subjective - meaning
irreal.
But now an intellectual U-turn occurred by the empiricists
declaring that qualities were all in the senses, thus the subject
becoming the creator of reality, whatever "was out there" was
completely ineffable. And then Kant who saw this as rationality
gone wild and criticized it in his "Kritik Der Reinen Vernunft" ....
and the rest is history ...everything since being footnotes to Kant
By now you will see what I mean by intellect's shift from
"objectivity over subjectivity" to "subjectivity over objectivity"
each claiming to be TRUE (perhaps that is a better term than
"objective") and its see-saw between these two poles views
until Robert M Pirsig appeared on the scene and by his stroke of
genius made short thrift of all these meanderings by making them
the highest static level of his MOQ.
Bo earlier:
> >About logic at the social level. When ancient 3rd. level people
> >saw natural phenomena as the work of gods, it was a logical
> >conclusion from their "social" premises. SOL does not fall the
> >least apart, it stands taller than ever.
> Paul: The ancients did not speak of premises and deductive inference
> and conclusions and validity of argument.
Agree.
> Any old statement about
> anything is "logical" by your definition - where do we draw the line?
Logic became a discipline by the intellectual level that's
"selbstverstendlich" but as we try (at least this person) to
transcend intellect, we must use its own weight to "throw" it.
> I'm talking about logic as an explicit discipline. There is almost
> universal agreement that logic in this sense emerged at around the 4th
> century BC in the Mohist school of China, the Nyaya school in India,
> and the Aristotelian method in Greece. I may add that they emerged
> independently of each other, which is another spanner in the SOL's
> works.
Thinking or intelligence isn't the intellectual level, but it has
mesmerized us to believe so.
Bo earlier:
> >SOL does not fall the
> >least apart, it stands taller than ever.
> Paul: You remind me of "comical Ali" during the latest Iraq war. My
> favourite quote is - "We have destroyed 2 tanks, fighter planes, 2
> helicopters and their shovels - We have driven them back."
;-) If this makes you feel good, be my guest, it doesn't bother
me.
Bo earlier:
> >As said, the social level (emotions) is not subjective, tha's from
> >intellect's static view. Then rest of your criticism based on this
> >fallacy is nil and void.
> Paul: Let's go into this because it exposes a problem in your
> formulation of the SOL. When you talk about matter not "existing"
> until the intellectual level you are not saying, in the same way as
> above, that the inorganic level was simply wrongly described as
> objective matter are you? You are saying that mind and matter only
> came to "exist" at the intellectual level and that matter has nothing
> at all to do with the inorganic level. You have said this many times.
This is hardly my opinion rather MOQ's, but that SOM's matter
has nothing to do with MOQ's static inorganic value I agree with.
> Applying that same reasoning to emotion, it would mean that >
> emotion,
> as it is commonly understood, didn't "exist" prior to being part of
> the subjective half of the intellectual level
Yes, the social level did not know the "emotion" term as far as I
know. "The Iliad" was pointed out by Pirsig as the essence of the
pre-intellectual - social - reality and there is nothing about
emotions from their point of view, but all emotional from intellect
and higher.
> and that SOM's emotion
> has nothing to do with the social level.
SOM - or intellect - knows no social - or any other - level, to that
reality emotion belongs to the subjective realm. Full stop.
> I think you're being
> inconsistent here. You can't have it both ways.
To me your conclusion sounds like based on SOM's premises ...
> Putting it another way, I can just as easily say that the intellectual
> level is mind but has nothing to do with SOM's mind. It is the same
> phenomena, just wrongly understood by a SOM.
"Mind" is part and parcel of intellect's "mind/matter" aggregate
and as little as matter conforms to MOQ's inorganic value, mind
does to its intellectual value.
> When this has been
> suggested in the past by e.g. Scott, Matt, and myself, you have blown
> up, saying that intellect is the mind/matter divide itself. I can
> turn your argument back on you and say that intellect is the
> reason/emotion divide itself, hence emotion is an intellectual
> pattern.
The reason/emotion divide is one of intellect's many S/Os - that's
correct, also that emotions as subjective is intellect's, but from
the Quality premises things are seen differently, emotions are
the social level's "expression" .
Bo earlier:
> >OK, who am I to stop you from sounding more and more like
> >Mark.
> Paul: May I request an argument against this statement from LILA and
> the outright contradiction it presents to SOL, instead of an attempted
> brush-off?
?????????
Bo earlier:
> >...with the same Jesuitic fervor. Regarding "...virtually everybody"
> >I'm not so sure, and about "..fairly and soundly defeated" I must
> >have missed that part. Do you really thing I would keep this up -
> >year after year - if anyone had shown me the flaw in it? While you
> >seem unaware of the rug being pulled from under you by Pirsig's
> >rejecting the Proto Quality divided in DQ/SQ. This confirms SOL's
> >Quality Reality beyond intellect - regardless of seeing SOM as one
> >intellectual pattern or as intellect itself.
> Paul: Huh? I've never denied that Dynamic Quality is beyond
> intellect, if that is the rug that has been pulled. Though I'm not
> sure what you are talking about.
This needs a separate post.
Bo earlier:
> >So much in ZMM and LILA points to the SOL that I am sure of
> >being on the right track. For instance ZMM's "diagram" that says that
> >intellect=S/O.
> Paul: "Objects are inorganic and biological values; subjects are
> social and intellectual values." [LILA, p344]
This too.
Yours most sincerely
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 : Mon Nov 28 2005 - 11:33:27 GMT