From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 08:25:42 BST
Scott,
Sorry "GOF" = Good Ol' Fashioned.
GOF-xxx = the way people would understand xxx before MoQish thinking.
I think your symbolic manipulation is one part of intelligence (a
linguistic part and therefore very important part) but I doubt it will
be very satisfactory as the whole definition of "intellect". We'll
see.
You do highlight one of the isssues, more significant in this higher
layer - the extent to which it is really "static". The rate of
evolution in this layer is greater than the others, and we probably
have many static patterns within in, (and that's really what we're
talking about) rather than the whole "slab" of intellect being
"static" - if it were, it would be hard to avoid Bo's conclusion that
it just represents GOF-Intellect, as so far propounded by Pirsig.
For me this just becomes a mildly interesting picture of what had
evolved historically as far as SOMist intellect before the MoQ, but
leaves the MoQ itself out in the cold - as little more that the
mystery of DQ processes themselves. I'm trying to "add value" to that
picture.
I think your "working intellect" aspect is a valid part of this thread.
Ian
On 9/1/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@cox.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> In an earlier appeal, I offered as a definition of intellect: "the creation,
> observation, and manipulation of symbolic systems". This amends the MOQ in
> that it implies that intellect is not just static (intellect creates static
> intellectual patterns, doesn't just manipulate existing ones). It is
> intellect that observes particular forms of intellect (S/O and logic
> patterns -- not the same thing) and so can go question them and go beyond
> them. Which is to say that this rejects Bo's opinion that intellect is just
> S/O. (And please note that, as I said before, one can accept this definition
> without necessarily buying into my opinion that all that is is the working
> of intellect -- I will attempt to suspend that argumentation in this
> thread).
>
> What does GOF stand for?
>
> - Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron@gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:21 AM
> Subject: MD Debating Intellect MoQ-Wise (Was Rhetoric)
>
>
> Bo, Sam, et al,
>
> (I'd be much obliged if this thread could stay on topic, it's part of
> a wider discussion beyond MD. "Instructions" at the end.)
>
> Bo latched onto my agreement with Sam about "intellect" being badly
> defined in received understanding of the MoQ. In a nutshell too much
> of the debate, explanation, argument used to define intellect is using
> SOMist (logical positivist rationale) Rationality.
>
> Bo's proposed solution is to see the MoQ as outside or beyond the four
> SPV's so that the upper of the SPV's contained can be re-defined as
> GOF-SOMist Intellect itself. (Bo's alternative Subject-Object Layer.)
>
> Mine is to see GOF-SOMist Intellect as just one pre-existing static
> latch within a more broadly defined intellectual level consisting, at
> levels above that latch, as the MoQ itself. (I see it that way because
> it leaves room for future evolution of the MoQ itself, within itself.
> It allows me to hang on to the cranky idea that a repaired MoQ could
> be "the final word", whilst still claiming to be a pragmatist - but I
> pre-empt the debate.)
>
> Either way we agree re-definition of the Intellectual-SPV is needed,
> and an understanding of the MoQ - just another SP(I)V - within or in
> relation to it.
>
> The important thing is that anyone contributing to this debate MUST
> apply their full MoQ-Intellect, not just GOF-SOMist intellectual
> arguments, even though we have not yet defined / agreed what that
> "Full MoQ-Intellect" really is. If we don't manage that, any
> conclusion is practically useless.
>
> Anyone up for that recursive challenge ?
>
> My guess is we'll get led very quickly back to consciousness /
> immediate / empirical experience issues supporting intellect very
> quickly - a qualitative, intuitive MOQ "guess" notice, not a
> knock-down SOMist logical argument :-)
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On 9/1/05, skutvik@online.no <skutvik@online.no> wrote:
> > Ian and Sam if he listens.
> >
> > 31 Aug. Ian wrote:
> >
> > > Bo, Sam, et al,
> >
> > > Bo said
> > > > Because we are supposed to discuss the MOQ from its own
> > > > premises not from the intellect's - where it as said has the
> > > > proverbial snowball's chance.
> >
> > > I agree with this.
> > > (Once we're sure what we mean by intellect, or the itellectual SPV, of
> > > course.)
> >
> > "Once we're sure what we mean by intellect". Yes, it's been the
> > headache for years, and just as long has it been my conviction
> > that Phaedrus of ZMM was on the right track when he said that
> > intellect is the Subject/Object "generator". (See diagram in ZMM
> > of the preliminary MOQ). I regret to criticise Pirsig, but he omitted
> > the one single most important point of his original insight when he
> > wrote the final MOQ ...and by doing so created an impossible
> > intellectual level, even an impossible MOQ.
> >
> > > I've been saying all along that if the lowest form of intellect, the
> > > kind of "SOMist" rationality that pre-dates the MoQ, is all we're
> > > going to argue with, we may as well give up. Bo's snowball in hell is
> > > my chocolate fireguard.
> >
> > "The lowest form of intellect"? In my opinion the static intellectual
> > level is SOM. All of it, every last bit! If we retain a somish "mind"
> > as the true intellect - one that once was invaded by SOM and
> > now is supposed to be topped up with the MOQ - we are back in
> > the quagmire.
> >
> > > In my discussions with Sam about re-defining intellect he pointed out
> > > that Bo's "SOLAQI" stuff was addressing the same issue. I need to dig
> > > into that.
> >
> > Yes, Sam and I was once in touch about our respective efforts to
> > "repair" the intellectual level and his Eudaimonic idea and my
> > SOL may correspond well. Of late I have come to see that. The
> > subject - the free independent subject - is of course a result of the
> > SOM.
> >
> > > It's also part of my catch-22 / recursive / meta-argument - we need to
> > > be comfortable debating the MoQ from the MoQ perspective (as Pirsig
> > > clearly wasn't in Lila, IMHO
> >
> > In my opinion too Ian! And I have always wondered why. I have
> > assigned it to what I wrote about the lone sailor not being sure if
> > anyone would understand, needing an "objective" approach. But
> > a greater mystery is why - after getting himself a group discussing
> > his ideas - still kept up this somish intellect.
> >
> > The ironic thing is that he refers to intellect as self-evident and
> > yet don't heed what dictionaries define it as, namely the ability to
> > distinguish what is objective from what's subjective (Reason from
> > emotions and instincts)
> >
> > In the Paul letter, he dropped the "thinking" definition, but
> > seemed unable to take the full step to the SOL and ended up with
> > the equally impossible "manipulation of symbols" definition
> >
> > > and I wasn't party to the whole Lila
> > > squad annotations process.)
> >
> > The Lila Child is OK. 99% of the annotations are good, but there
> > are some horrible things, particularly regarding intellect and about
> > the MOQ having an "idealist" slant
> >
> > > The top level of the MoQ IS the MoQ.
> > > Get used to it.
> >
> > You made my day Ian!
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 08:54:17 BST