Hello Mark, Bo and fellow Mf'ers,
Thanks for your reply. Mark! Your response is the kind of explaination I've been
looking for. As you, too seem to be unsure about Bo's SOLAQI-idea and have been
busy on getting in to it, you may be the right person to answer my questions.
Now and then I had the feeling that I could grasp it, but nevertheless it is not
quite clear to me. Unfortunately, Bo, you seem to take questions, for the
reason of several fierce discussions about it have been taking part in the past,
merely as criticism or attack, but I sincerely try to understand this idea. I've
inserted my questions, only a few (just where they arise), because I already
have spend much time on it.
Mark Butler wrote:
>
> Hi JoVo and All,
>
> Thanks first for your 'Collection of Treasure Pieces'- a great read! I
> share your thoughts on Bo's MF contributions:
>
> JoVo:
> >I did not refer to any of Bo's contributions and the reason is, Bo, that
> I still do not quite understand your SOLAQI-idea, which seems to be
> understood by everybody else here, except me.
>
> I too have rarely refered to Bo in my few posts thus far for this very
> same reason. Perhaps Marco's request will prompt some of the newbies among
> us to look into Bo's position:
>
> Marco:
> >I think we can go on discussing for centuries and we will forever on our
> >respective positions. Maybe there's no time this month, but I'm almost
> >sure this is not the last time we are going to talk about SOLAQI. So I
> ask
> >everyone interested by SOLAQI to enter the discussion with some questions
> >about SOL, MOQ and this possible fifth level.
>
> I spend a rainy Saturday morning reading "SOLAQI: An Inquiry into
> Meaning". This is a compilation of some of Bo's contributions to The Lila
> Squad:
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/SOLAQI.htm
>
> ----------------------------
>
> As Bo is far too modest to allow his SOLAQI idea to dominate this month's
> discussion, the "Follower" will now attempt to speak for the
> "Evangelist"...
>
> (The following responses have been selected and edited by me, and may or
> may not represent Bo's current SOLAQI position, nor his responses to this
> month's questions.)
>
> 1. What is the Intellectual level?
> The intellectual level is Subject Object Logic as Quality(Q-) Intellect
> (SOLAQI). (ME)
>
> "Q-Intellect (generally) is the ability of an individual (biological
> organism) to view itself as different from other (society) and thereby
> give rise to the subject-object intuition which in time grew into the
> S-O-METAPHYSICS. [...] According to this idea are "consciousness",
> "awareness", "intelligence" and all other mind-evoking expressions
> (sedimented from the primordial S-O abstraction) collectively the
> Q-Intellect."
> (Bodvar Skutvik (Bo) to Lila Squad (LS), June 10, 1998)
Johannes asks: (to Bo or Mark)
In what way exactly is the Q-intellect different from the so-called
'SOL'-intellect?
Where exactly does it let DQ in and how can one achieve to develop one's
intellect to be aware of Quality? If I got you right in that, you say that
everybody has this Q-intellect originally. For me is intellect a kind of
changeable complex of intellectual patterns, a kind of 'software', which depends
on the culture and myth you've been growing up in. And how is this Q-intellect
being differentiated from the social patterns that are also trying to rule our
thinking?
>
> "The static intellectual level (Q-Intellect) is NOT the intellect
> of SOM. The former is subject-object logic while the latter is
> "thinking itself" or "mind". The razor-cut is made in the MOQ
> by replacing the S-O division with the DQ-SQ one. After that
> everything is changed, no more cutting is needed!!!"
> (Bo to LS, December 11, 1998)
Johannes asks:
The 'thinking itself' notion your putting up here, sounds as if it's similar to
what I would call 'social value patterns are corresponding to intellect value
pattern' and vice versa. I regard the social value pattern everybody has, as the
'sensing-unit' (sensing DQ) for the intellect value pattern. Or do you state by
this, that the 'thinking itself' is something belonging clearly to the intellect
and what we have to learn again?
>
> 2. What are its values?
>
> "Doesn't Pirsig indicate that Intellectual patterns = logical, rigorous,
> systematic thinking, like science and philosophy?" (Donny Palmgren)
>
> "He does, and those patterns are Intellectual value, but it will be
> tiresome to list every conceivable InPoV individually so with my
> SAIOM idea I try to define ALL intellectual patterns as S-O thinking
> itself. (perhaps SAIOM should be renamed SOTAQI? (S-O thinking as
> Q-intellect)). Can you imagine science without a more fundamental
> subject-observing-objects notion, or philosophy without an individual
> mind thinking about eternal truth?"
> (Bo to LS, May 25, 1998)
I agree!
> 3. What are its goals?
>
> "...in spite of being the highest static value, Q-intellect is
> subordinate to Dynamic Quality, demonstrated in moments of
> ecstasy when self vanishes. Our great fear - losing ourselves -
> becomes the highest goal; a strange contradiction that has no
> explanation in SOM, but is the most natural thing in the MOQ
> (Dynamic Quality is identical to religious mysticism. LILA
> p.381)"
> (Bo to LS, September 30, 1998)
>
>
> 4. How does it manifest itself?
>
> ""There is intellect outside of language" you state. Hmmmm. Perception,
> experience, yes. Even intelligence, but the (Quality) Intellect is
> dependent upon symbolic language. It IS language in my opinion."
> (Bo to LS, September 30, 1997)
Johannes asks: (his last question)
Well but how it is then different from our usual way of thinking?
>
> "There must have been a time, millions of years ago,
> when the proto-humans were little more than animals; living in tribes
> and/or families, but without language as we know it, which is to say:
> Q-intellect had not emerged! After aeons (for reasons that is a
> mystery in itself) the brain's neural complexity had grown to
> proportions that enabled them to use abstract symbols that could be
> manipulated by rules of grammar. At first it wasn't much, nothing
> like SOM's "awakening to consciousness" or the biblical "eating of
> the tree of knowledge". Language was wholly "in the service" of
> Society."
I agree to this
> [...]
>
> "And over the millennia the Social level made use of this new tool to
> grow ever more complex structures cemented by the common language
> mediated mythology of divine origin and guidance. Yet, language was
> like the sorcerer's apprentice; it knew the start formula, but not
> how to stop. It facilitated improvements by spreading of knowledge
> and thereby prosperity but also something unheard of before: thinkers
> who used language to see themselves as independent of their
> community's strictures; the IDEA of a subject self of more value than
> society (other) was born. If we call it objectivization or
> subjectivization is the same; the two are always in step...and the
> rest is history."
> (Bo to LS, October 2, 1998)
>
> 5. Why should Intellectual Level values prevail over Social Level values?
>
> "I would say that consciousness is always SELF-CONSCIOUS and awareness
> always SELF-AWARE (a subject different from objective environment) so
> if my SOTAQI holds that is Intellect. And it's obvious; Q-intellect always
> holds up the worth of individual self (against the diffuse many of
> Q-society) and as intellect is our usual point of view; no wonder that
> personal worth and integrity ranks high."
> (Bo to LS, September 30, 1998)
>
> 6. Are intelligence and Intellectual Value the same thing?
>
> "Principally the MOQ's static Intellectual 'dimension' has nothing to do
> with smartness, intelligence or ability to think. There are calculating
> prodigies who can come up with the most amazing results in seconds, so
> their "thinking" is not the least affected even if they are intellectual
> AND SOCIAL nitwits."
> (Bo to LS, September 17, 1997)
I agree to this
> My initial view to Bo's SOLAQI idea is that it clearly meets Pirsig's (?)
> criteria that "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with
> experience, and economy of explanation." But I'll need more time to weigh
> it against the opposition. Either way, I feel that my whole understanding
> of the MOQ has suddenly shifted to another level, thanks Bo!
>
> All the best,
>
> Mark
With best wishes and let DQ be with you,
JoVo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST