Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:52:37 +0100
Subject/objective metaphysics As Intellect Of MOQ (Again!).
> TO BE IS TO DO (Socrates)
> TO DO IS TO BE (Sartre)
> DO BE DO-BE DO (Sinatra)
On the 23rd March 1998, Bodvar wrote (or sang...?):
> Hi Maggie
> I heard your request above the din. A twenty word summary
> of the SAIOM idea? Impossible, but take it in steps.
> Remember our initial attempts to define the Intellectual
> value level? The lower levels seemed pretty
> self-evident, but the top one evaded us.
> The first and most obvious; as mind (of SOM's
> mind/matter) raises serious trouble - look to Kevin's
> fretting over what is good and bad if Intellect's (as
> thinking) ideas takes precedence over everything
> else.
Bo,
Please state the exact problem here i.e. why does (the
Western notion of) mind as intellect raise SERIOUS trouble?
> For long I held that language (linguistic symbol
> manipulation) was the solution, then we went over to
> rationality, math; scientific method even. From my LILA
> copy I see that I have jotted down a NB dated 1993
> about the correlation between the events that ZMM
> describes (the birth of subject/object thinking in the
> early Greek culture) and the emergence of the
> Intellectual level in LILA. So finally I launched the
> SAIOM idea: the Intellect of MOQ IS subject/object
> metaphysics itself!
What about the Intellectual level in Eastern thinking?
That isn`t SOM is it?
> The benefits are. One: It once and for all brings the
> wrong, but ineradicable SOM-lag, Intellect-as-mind out in
> the open. Now Intellect is seen as thinking in a
> particular way: the subject/object way.
I don`t think Intellect is necessarily thinking in the s/o
way.
> Two: SO (the M dropped) is brought inside the MOQ
> fold, no longer a competing metaphysics lurking outside
> in a meta-metaphysical realm. It has a satisfying closed
> circle effect on me, but no more rhetorics!
SOM has inherent metaphysical defects in it (e.g.
mind/matter etc). Aren`t we in danger of re-introducing
these if we introduce SOM into MOQ? Why isn`t it better
just to move on and concentrate on the problems that might
arise solely with the MOQ and forget SOM all together?
> This was the shortest I could manage, hope you get the
> gist of it. Only Platt and Magnus have endorsed it
> (Kevin perhaps?) while Hugo is doubtful and Doug has put
> it in the "junk" tray...
Anthony has an open mind but still needs to be convinced!
I look forward to your answers, Bodvar.
Best Wishes,
Anthony.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:58 CEST