From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 16:54:03 BST
On 14 Aug 2003 at 13:00, Joe wrote:
> Bo sees the intellect as S/O. I don't know if I have a proper
> understanding of what he is saying, but to me this means that
> intellect apprehends and is a difference between dq and sq. In using
> words which represent patterns to explain that difference sometimes dq
> is a subject, and sometimes sq is a subject. When dq is used as a
> subject intellect is undefined. IMO the social order does not know
> the undefined as a pattern, nor does the organic order.
Dear Joe
Is it so terribly difficult to understand the S/O-intellect idea? You have
read "Zen and the Art .." haven't you? In it the emergence of the
subject/object metaphysics with the early Greeks is described, in my
opinion this perfectly and seamlessly describes the emergence of the
intellectual level. The metaphysical "M" is taken over by the MOQ so
the S/O remains. What is so problematic in understanding that?
Whether you agree is something else.
That it means "...intellect apprehends and is a difference between dq
and sq ... etc. I have problems with understanding (at first glance, but
willing to discuss ;). Words?! Social era people spoke words. Look at
it this non-philosophical way: Ancient people (social era) accepted the
myths, nobody asked if this was OBJECTIVELY true in contrast to
SUBJECTIVE fairy tales. The value of dividing experience in this s/o
manner IS THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL. Full stop. Your comments
or objections are welcome, but it's a good start if you understood it.
Sincerely Bo
PS
Maybe to understand is to accept? But that's another discussion.
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 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 16:55:51 BST