On 21 Feb 2002, at 11:22, 3dwavedave wrote:
> Bo
> Oops...after sending my last message I reread your post and understand
> better, I think, that you were not saying that I proposed this, but
> that you are:
Phew! Right you are ....
> > I suggested the S/O divide for q-intellect... A "better than"
> > version of this will naturally be: OBJECTIVITY IS BETTER THAN
> > SUBJECTIVITY. And really, > can this enormous value increment be
> > ignored?
..these were MY words.
> Or that Bo's MoQ principles would read:
> > > Basic principle: Better is Better.
> > > 1st Principle: Something is better than Nothing
> > > 2nd Principle: Alive is better than Dead
> > > 3rd Principle: Together is better than Alone
> 4th Principle: Objectivity is better than Subjectivity
> Right?
Exactly!
> Let me try to interpret this. In leap from the social to the
> intellectual level the MoQ proposes that subject object logic is not
> only the method by which the leap was accomplished; but that the
> principle that "Objectivity is better than Subjectivity" is the only
> possible way and absolutely the "best" way the intellect has to
> interpret reality.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
> That is until the MoQ came along. And the MoQ is
> "better" but it is not a pattern of intellectual values, but something
> else, we know not what. It is outside any static pattern we can glean
> from experience.
YES DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry:)
> Never mind that Pirsig, in the SODV paper, suggested that the whole
> intellectual and social levels are subjective and that the inorganic
> and biological are objective.
It's not only the SODV, it's said in LILA too. The inorganic-
biological levels as "objects" and social-intellectual as "subjects" is
a way to subsume SOM under QM's rule and it works, but has its
weakness ...I wonder if the SOL interpretation excludes it, rather
complements it.
> According to this principle of MoQ's
> intellect you propose that objective patterns of value, the fact, that
> (1+1=2 which is objective, but neither inorganic nor biological) is of
> enormously greater value, is better than, is closer to dynamic
> quality, than any the subjective pattern of values. Is better, than
> say the one we call human "consciousness".
Right here you become cryptic, or some words are missing, would
you try again? No irony.
> And further according to
> the MoQ, these intellectual values, (1+1=2) are the greatest, the
> best, the closest to dynamic quality, of any stable patterns that we
> can experience.
Right, only that it isn't just logic and math that characterize the
S/O-intellect (that came later), but as said: the ability/capacity to
divide what is objective from what is subjective .....you also got the
point in your interpretation that - after the QM - S/O is no absolute,
but a static level!
As said, your interpretation was spot on and for a moment I
thought you saw its virtue .... anyway it is a great thing that
someone (at last) understands what I have been driving at.
Before going over to Barrett and consciousness (it's not Dennett
and his "Consciousness Explained"?) can't you rephrase your
criticism for my benefit ...if that's what it is?
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST