Re: MD Intellectually Nowhere

From: Valence (
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 07:02:07 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Lila's Child (SOM)"

    Hey David, Bo and all, (but mainly David ;-)
    You and Steve have moved so far beyond where we were in the conversation
    that I thought rather than just repeat the arguments that Steve has been
    making, (which I mostly agree with), I would pursue some new avenues of
    discussion (but I'll also send another post tomorrow responding to a few
    points you had raised earlier)....

    Bo wrote to David:
    > You return to the S/O-intellect as soon as not speaking to me. No
    > human being can be anti -(manipulation of symbols)-intellectual, while
    > an individual may to not be able/willing to pursue objectivity at the cost
    > of social "face", or for a whole culture to be social-value focussed yet
    > harboring great thinkers and writers....
    > Your excellent defense of the Social Reality is - whether you like it or
    > not - also a defense of the S/O-intellect. Again and again you point to
    > the pre-historic past and dismiss the silly - what was it - "socially
    > repetitive behaviour" as the source of the Egyptian culture, Babylon,
    > Niniveh ..etc. All this - and all LILA - points to the intellectual level
    > emerging with the early Greeks and thus being the S/O value, but
    > when it comes to accepting your own conclusions you lose
    > momentum and lapses to the impossible "non-s/o intellectual
    > patterns". What these patterns are I will never understand.
    > Mathemathics and/or calculation? When stone age people calculated
    > things it was for social purposes and when a modern day scientist do
    > mathematis it is for intellectual purposes. There is no such "in itself"
    > the MOQ.

    I think Bo makes a great point DMB. You have made yourself a defacto
    defender of the SOLAQI by declaring that LILA doesn't participate in
    intellectual patterns because she is not "an intellectual". Please clarify
    your position in regards to Bo's comments.

    To make a second point (unrelated to Bo's comments), I would ask you to
    respond to these quotes:
    "Insanity on the other hand is an intellectual pattern (LILA ch26 p377)."
    "He wasn't going to send her to any hospital. He knew that now. At a
    hospital they'd just start shooting her full of drugs and tell her to
    adjust. What they wouldn't see is that she *is* adjusting. That's what the
    insanity is. She's adjusting to something. The insanity is the adjustment
    (LILA ch30 p425)."

    It would seem to me that if Phaedrus thinks insanity is an adjustment of
    intellectual patterns, and if he thinks that Lila is insane, then it is
    pretty indisputable that he MUST think she has intellectual patterns. Care
    to dispute???

    take care

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 07:13:51 BST