Hello Bodvar, Jonathan and all
skutvik@online.no wrote:
> DAN said to Jonathan (who had said to me )
>
> > > Jonathan:
> > > I agree that language is a primary vehicle for intellectual activity
> > > since the dawn of human civilization - long, long before the
> > > emergence of subject-object based philosophy. Where I disagree is
> > > your attempts to limit Intellect to subject-objectivism only.
> > > Pirsig's novels and the MOQ website are strewn with quotes from
> > > great intellectuals such as Einstein and Poincare that attach great
> > > importance to the emotional/intuitive part of intellect.
>
> > Dan:
> > This is one of my concerns too with Bodvar's SOLAQI theory. However, I
> > tend to see the development of language as evolutionary valuing of
> > preconditioned subject/object awareness. For example, Bo once
> > mentioned Helen Keller and her struggle to gain knowledge to
> > communicate with others. Metaphorically seen in her light, certainly
> > we humans possessed language skills before civilization, but without a
> > preconditional way (language in humans) in which to communicate,
> > social structures would have no value latching opportunities. Before
> > civilization as historically recorded, humans lived and thrived and
> > died for tens and hundreds of thousands of years quite possibly in
> > tribal\family units, which again value preconditioned communication. I
> > seriously doubt there could be language as we know it without
> > preconditioned subject/object awareness.
> Bo:
> It takes an Herculean effort to tune in on another person's
> perception of what is said. If I get Dan correctly his concern about
> my SOLAQI (that Q-Intellect is the S/O-logic) is related to
> Jonathan's above where he starts by saying:
>
> > I agree that language is a primary vehicle for intellectual
> > activity since the dawn of human civilization - long, long before
> > the emergence of subject-object based philosophy.
>
> I think that Jonathan and I have a little disagreement in spite of
> declarations of agreement. When a stone age group gathered
> around the fire and spoke to each other, language was not a
> vehicle of Intellect in the MOQ sense. It was an enhancing of (the
> social) INTELLIGENCE which the still older hominides used body
> signals to convey. There were no "sceptics" who used language to
> say: "I doubt if the stars REALLY are gods ...etc". Language was a
> great leap, but not in itself the leap from the Social level to the
> Intellectual level.
>
> So, in the above light I wonder if our (Jonathan & mine)
> disagreement is substantial? I also wait for Dan to say if this
> changes anything.
Hi Bodvar
I am beginning to see Jonathan's point here when you put things like
this. If there is an "enhancing of intelligence" in each level, what is
the need of a static intellectual level in the first place? Instead,
could this "enhancement" just be the simultaneous action of intellect?
Let's use quantum physics as a metaphor. You all might like to check out
this article called Schroedinger's SQUID:
http://www.sciam.com/2000/1000issue/1000scicit5.html
A clip from the article reads:
"The problem, as Erwin Schrödinger pointed out in 1935, is to understand
why “quite
ridiculous” superpositions like that of his cat are never seen
in reality, despite there being
no prohibition of them in unadulterated quantum mechanics."
It would seem the MOQ uses "quite ridiculous" superpositions to explain
reality just like quantum theory does, with all four levels operating
discretely yet simultaneously.
Dan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST