From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 10:36:31 BST
Hi Jonathan.
On 19 Sep. you wrote:
> Bo, we need to characterize YOUR "Q-intellect", and see how it
> measures up against Pirsig's concept of intellectual patterns.
Accepted.
> Contrary to what you say, we sill have to attempt to define the terms
> using language - that's what definitions are.
Yes, language has been used for "descriptions" and a billion other
purposes since it is appeared on the evolutionary stage. In SOM it
has assumed the same role as mind, Niels Bohr's: "Everything is
suspended in language" is SOM's (idealist): "Everything is in (our)
minds".
But if the MOQ is to replace SOM, none of the the latter's "views" can
be retained - least of all the said of language-as-mind. This has
become my "stone tablet", but it is not heeded, "mind" has even
become Q-intellect itself, the level from where an "abstract" linguistic
picture of everything else is painted.
Language was the social pattern that DQ "hijacked" for its ride to
intellect and is now part of every intellectual pattern in the same way
that inorganic carbon is part of every biological organism. Still where
we manage to separate life from carbon, we seem incapable of
distinguishing INTELLECT from LANGUAGE (in its mind capacity).
> You don't help any by
> throwing in a new vocabulary (Q-evolution? your post of 14 Sep 2003)
> as if it means something!
I just tired of referring to the static development. "Q-evolution" is
merely this growth. Nothing more.
> I think that the problem is that you fail to distinguish between
> REASON and RATIONALITY. I've hammered away at this for a long time
> (e,g, see my reply to you last year on this same subject:
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0207/0354.html
-----Comments to the above mentioned message --------
Jonathan:
> Bo, I think we are on the same wavelength - nobody else seems to understand
> what I don't like about the intellectual LEVEL. I don't deny the existence
> of Intellect per se, but I find enormous difficulties in giving it its own
> level.
Great about our common wavelength, but what "intellect" is it you
don't like? The Lila Child variety or the LILA (dictionary) one? Update
me.
Jonathan:
> But Bo, I do see the virtue of SOLAQI. I think SOL is a very large part of
> intellect.
The S/O "..a very large part of intellect"! But what is it a great part of??
That's the question.
> SOL, as the main component of rational thought is clearly the
> major player in the construction and analysis of the MoQ.
Then, if I may sum up, you agree that the S/O-rationality is Q-intellect
(a large part at least) and that the MOQ is "out of" intellect. Rationality
"a major player ..etc). That's as close as you can come without
declaring total agreement :-), but trust Jonathan ;-) .....
> .........However, I think
> that there is more to reason than that.
In my lis - Interaction-Sensation-Emotion-Reason - the last rhymed
better than "rationality", but is merely a characterization of (the value
of) distinguishing between what is objective and what is subjective.
> I've often said that one can follow
> a logical/dialectical thought process all the way to absurdity.
No doubt.
> However, we have an inherent ability to look at the product of logic and say
> "that just isn't reasonable" (which is why people are good at picking up
> massive computer errors!!!).
Yes, but the VALUE of reason/rationality is ineradicable.
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 Sep 22 2003 - 10:54:40 BST