Bo (and anyone interested):
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I read this many times over and I
still have questions and (maybe) criticisms. First I have to ask about
this:
BO:
" IMO it is the capability of distinguishing between what's subjective (the
myth)
> and what's objective (truth).This is in my opinion the Q-intellect.
> Fundamentally different from SOM's mental realm that tend to recur
> in our MOQ understanding."
RICK:
This intrigued me instantly. It is strange to me to see you align
"subject/object" with "myth/truth" (RMP aligns S/O with Mind/Matter, doesn't
he?). As I understand it, the MoQ does not acknowledge any "truth"... not
in any conventional sense anyway. My problem comes from the notion that you
are using "truth" to mean--- a proposition that corresponds to some
objective reality... or maybe... that which is independent of what any one
thinks about it. --- The SOLAQI reminds me of the compromise made by Plato
for the Sophists (described by RMP in ZMM) in which he gave the Good the
highest position in his system, subservient to only the True--- the SOLAQI
seems to reverse this, giving the True (as Intellect) the highest position,
subservient only to the Good (DQ itself). This sounds like a good idea, but
it brought me back to this...
"What deduction or induction guarantees us freedom of speech? Or the
> > right to a fair trial? Or freedom of the press? I can't find these
> > things in SOL anywhere. These concepts are neither generalizations
> > of experience, nor are they formal necessities. So I put it to
> > Bo--- How does one get freedom of the press from SOL???"
BO:
>" You can't go directly from pre-historic society to caring about a free
> press: some grand shift had to take place first. This upheaval is
> what is described by Pirsig in ZAMM. It may even have had some
> earlier start; what Wavedave talked about in his time-shift message
> or like Jaynes' "bicameral" idea. But the Q-intellect and subject-
> object metaphysics are intimately connected."
RICK:
I agree with everything you say here, but I'm not sure it answers the
question. I'm not disputing that the Q-Intellect and SOM are intimately
connected... only that SOL (or SOM, whichever you prefer) is the WHOLE of
Q-Intellect. I still fail to see how one can arrive at the notion of
"freedom of the press" or "habeas corpus" using SOL. As I said before,
these concepts are neither generalizations of experience, nor are they
formal necessities. "Freedom of the press" cannot be deduced from any
formal logical principles, it cannot be induced from any "objective"
experiences... So I ask, doesn't there have to be more to the "one
overarching idea of Q-Intellect" (that you spoke of) than just SOL....
>
BO:
> From intellect (as SOM) itself "objectivity" (a free press among other
things) is what everything is
> about while "subjectivity" are all the bad collective myths (religion
> for instance as presented by the fundamentalists of all
> denominations) we are supposed to shun: Social values in a
> nutshell! The problem is that nobody outside our small circle
> recognize any 'intellect' or 'society' or the MOQ for that matter."
RICK:
I hate to suggest that this begs the question but in light of the above
paragraph, I'll re-ask it like this:
1. In what way does "objectivity" guarantee us a free press?
2. If it doesn't, then how can the SOLAQI possibly hold up?
It's all Good and getting better,
Rick
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST