From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 22:46:50 BST
Hi Scott
Scott:
I think Pirsig falls into a SOM trap here. That is a view that
presupposes
that there was no intellect until brains developed to produce it.
Intellect
produced the brain so it can work in physical reality. No, I can't prove
this, but I take it as a more useful myth than the Darwinian one.
Paul:
I'm interested by this Scott, please explain:
"Intellect produced the brain" as in the "idea" of a "brain" did not
exist until the intellect invented it?
Or
"Intellect produced the brain" as in Dynamic Quality created the brain
and you equate DQ with intellect?
Or
Another explanation?
Scott:
I disagree. Again, I see this as a SOM viewpoint: there is objective
experience to be explained by the subject. This is the current value of
S/O
thinking, as Bo says, but not basic.
Paul:
You have made the assumption that experience = experiencing subject of
an experienced object. There is no need to make this assumption, such
divisions come after the empirically experienced value and may form the
conceptual arrangement of the form "S/O" or may not, I don't see the
necessity. As such, I fail to see how this is a SOM viewpoint
Scott:
Basically, I would say that the value
of thinking, like everything else, is creativity for its own sake.
Paul:
When you say - "that the value of thinking, like everything else, is
creativity for its own sake" are you not offering an explanation of the
experience of intellectual patterns?
With no conceptual organisation of experience there are no explanations,
with no explanations there is no prediction, with no prediction there is
no science, with no science there is no technology, with no technology
there is no internet, with no internet there is no on-line discussion
group to discuss the MOQ, with no on-line discussion group we wouldn't
be having this discussion about what the value of the intellectual level
is.
My experience right now is explained very well by saying that we are
having this discussion. I guess the question is - are "concepts" and
"ideas" a side effect of "creativity for its own sake"? Is this all an
illusory consequence of creativity?
Just thinking out loud :-)
Cheers
Paul
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 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 22:52:20 BST