Bo, (and anyone interested),
This a lengthy one but I beg you to bear with me....
BO:
> The strongest indication that Q-intellect=subject-objectivity is the
> Greek experience as described in ZAMM. It is about the rise of
> truth above myth. I don't remember your (Rick's) opinion on how
> this ZAMM part is to be interpreted when we discussed it, but it
> can be seen alternatively as the emergence of the intellectual level
> and of subject-object metaphysics which gives a strong case for
> identity."
RICK:
I am behind the view that ZAMM documents the "original" triumph of Intellect
over Society... and the emergence of SOM. No problems here.
>
RICK:
> > "--- 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..."
PlaBO:
> This is an interesting observation Rick! I haven't seen it before.
> Yes, I agree, its a reversal. Thanks for pointing to it. You may call
> me PlaBo now. ;-D
>
RICK:
I'm glad you liked this bit.... it gives me the feeling that you are
definitely on to something (even if SOLAQI isn't that "something").
> >
>BO:
> I am at a loss to find new ways of saying it, but what is justice
> except OBJECTIVITY?. That is what human rights and every
> conceivable (intellectual) value is about. But to be objective you
> have to know subjectivity, they go together like up and down.
RICK:
Wow!!! I glad you chose the word "Justice" for this. Because it leads me to
the heart of my SOLAQI problem, which is this.... the Intellectual level, as
I understand it, has a HUMANISTIC element that the SOLAQI does not seem to
account for. That is, the "human rights" you refer to in the above quote do
not seem (at least to me) to be entirely derivable from the concept of
objectivity. Let's take Justice.... A certain Belgian Rhetorician (who I
keep plugging in this forum) began his Inquiry into argumentation by
examining
the concept of Justice. You ask, "What is Justice except OBJECTIVITY?" He
made a relatively exhaustive list of all the
ideas people have variously referred to over the years with the "Justice".
Here's a few:
1. To each the same thing.
2. To each according to his merits.
3. To each according to his works.
4. To each according to his needs.
5. To each according to rank.
6. To each according to his legal entitlements....etc.
Eventually, he noticed a common thread that runs through all conceptions of
"Justice", that is--- "Things that are essentially alike should be treated
the same." He calls this the RULE of JUSTICE. (at this point the theorist
of whom I am speaking spent the rest of his life searching for a
logic of value judgments--- what he eventually came up with revolves around
a conflict between STATIC JUSTICE and DYNAMIC JUSTICE!!!---but that's for
another post).... back to the topic---- Now, the RoJ has a very
"objective" ring to it (does it not?)... Is this principle not at the heart
of formal logic and mathematics? Without the assumption that "like things
should be treated the same" these pursuits would not be possible. It would
not be possible to discern patterns, or use experience as precedent for
inductions. I think I can safely say that the RoJ is intimately connected
to "objectivity". In fact, the RoJ itself cannot really be deduced from any
logical principle or induced from any experience because deduction and
induction already assume the rule.
However, like objectivity itself, the RoJ does not tell us (1) what
things are essentially alike or (2) how they should be treated. For
example, I may say that the Intellectually Just Society is a Society that
gives the exact same things to each of its citizens (the same legal
entitlements, the same taxes, the same salaries, the houses, the same health
insurance....etc.) something like Communism maybe. You say, no way Rick,
the Intellectually Just Society gives the same to each citizen based on
their works. That is, some people work harder or more important jobs than
others and deserve to be treated accordingly, something like Capitalism
maybe....
Each way is just, each way is an objective way of doing things... but they
are (as far as I can tell) incompatible in practice.
Are you getting my point yet? Justice may be objectivity, but objectivity
about what? Objectivity is implemented to uphold the standards, but it does
not set them.
BO:
Each Q-level can be boiled down to some
> essential "expression" as I called it in my INTERACTION-
> SENSATION-EMOTION-REASON sequence. There are countless
> patterns but something characterizes the patterns of each level. I
> would have liked to call Q-intellect's expression "subject/objection"
> (to keep the 'ion' suffix, but reason says the same thing.
RICK:
I have no objection to the term "reason" (maybe RAQI???), I only object the
limitation of reason to SOL.
>
BO:
What would guarantee a free press other than [the quest for]
> objectivity?
RICK:
Maybe so, but the "quest for objectivity" does not always win out
Intellectually... Free press has been balanced against other rights and lost
before. Often courtrooms are closed to the press to protect the identities
of witnesses because their "right to privacy" is more valued than the
press's freedoms. The same right is being used to pass laws that protect
celebrities by limiting the rights of Paparazzi photographers. And there are
lots of other examples of rights that have successfully outbalanced the
freedom of press (and rightfully so IMHO)... This "right to privacy" is as
much a part of the Intellectual level as the "free press", yet it adds
nothing to the "quest for objectivity". In fact, it usually stands directly
in the way. Objectivity is High Quality Intellectual pattern, but it is not
the only one, and it is not the entirety of Reason either. This humanistic
side of Intellect manifests itself in the alliance between Intellect and
Biology.... Intellect "protects" Biology from Society, often at the expense
of Objectivity.
Thanks for staying on this far,
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