Re: MD Re: The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 18:20:18 BST

  • Next message: Case: "RE: MD Any help"

    Anthony.

    11 Oct. you wrote:

    > Bo, the greater context of the MOQ is Quality itself. Again, I have
    > to remind you that you’re incorrectly conflating the metaphysical map
    > that is the MOQ with reality itself. I do agree that some theories
    > don’t have references to themselves but a metaphysics – by definition
    > being a map of all reality - must have a place for itself within
    > reality. Otherwise it isn’t a metaphysics!

    Thanks for spending so much time on this issue Ant, but I have
    begun to doubt if it will bring us anywhere. When you argue
    against the SOL you argue against ZMM and LILA (as I see it),
    and when I argue for it, I argue against Pirsig (as you see it).
    Mike sees the value of having a 4th level that meets the static
    requirements, Ian sees something fishy about the social-
    intellectual relationship.

    > I guess that if Pirsig had written ZMM after LILA,

    But he did write ZMM first and the succession shows the
    development from Phaedrus to the more careful Pirsig who wrote
    about him. Yet, while writing ZMM Pirsig was still sympathetic
    and rendered his ideas truthfully - for instance the diagram that
    shows intellect as the S/O generator. In LILA however a small
    discrepancy between the value LEVEL and "intellect" in the
    traditional sense as mind enters and in some Lila's Child
    annotations the chasm widens.

    > he possibly would
    > have referred to the particular form of Western “rationality”
    > discussed in ZMM as “SOM rationality” to emphasise the fact that it’s
    > only one manifestation of rationality, not the whole show.

    Maybe he would, but look: What ZMM describes is the
    emergence of what is called SOM, this is in conflict with
    something he calls Aretê that the ancient "Iliad" heroes display
    (forget the Sophists for a while) How is this to be understood in a
    MOQ retrospect if not as intellectual value's emergence from -
    and suppression of social value. As said in LILA:

        Perhaps in Homer’s time, when evolution had not yet
        transcended the social level into the intellectual ...etc.

    From this it can be derived that SOM is the emerging intellectual
    value that challenges the (till then) ruling social value, SOM is
    not an idea of an idea-producing intellect, rather intellect being
    the mind/matter divide itself. Only afterwards has it hypnotized us
    into believing that idea-producing is it's "nature". It's crucial for
    intellect to maintain this illusion lest it will de-masked.

    This is all for now, it's a shame to ignore the rest of your great
    post, but I just wonder how you see ZMM's Greek part in a MOQ
    retrospect?

    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 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 19:57:02 BST