[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[MarshaV]

Bo,

Please state which of my statements you are calling  
"Marshas woolly nonsense."  At lease give me an 
opportunity to defend my position.  


Marsha   




On Jan 2, 2010, at 8:24 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:

> Hi Andre
> 
> 2 Jan. :
> 
> Andre previously:
>>> Also, logic appears to be a method of establishing 'formal', 'true'
>>> relationships. Following the 'logical' path leads to 'truth'
>>> statements.
> 
> Bodvar:
>> Yes, that's something different and more close to the "theorems" I'm
>> harping on. Ancient people knew the Pythagoras "effect" long before
>> Pythagoras, but he set out to prove that the sum of the squares ...
>> etc. is valid always. That's the said intellectual attitude. But don't
>> be fooled that "logic itself" only serves intellect, it was - still is
>> - equally logical to a devout Muslim that Allah has given Mohammed the
>> rules to live by. It's the premises that count.
> 
> Andre now:
>> I agree and suggest further that it appears to me that the
>> intellectual level, because dominated by the S/O distinction, is using
>> 'logic itself' as a means to dominate the social level. It does so by
>> declaring emotions (biological/social responses) as subjective and
>> therefore illogical. At least this is one of the ways I am beginning
>> to understand you SOL thesis.
> 
> Yes, that's exactly the way to understand the SOL. The social level (in 
> its heyday) did not know any "formal logic" to underpin their god-run 
> universe it was just natural. With intellect's advent common sense 
> became objectified-formalized and just  as you say, the social reality 
> was deemed illogic, superstitious, just in minds, subjective . All these 
> derogatory terms are intellect's creations.       
> 
>> A few examples maybe: a hospital may run efficiently (logically) but
>> as a human being one gets the feeling of being reduced to a patient
>> i.e. a medical case. The 'user- friendly' interactions a syrupped
>> covering over the clinical hardness of a logically organised health
>> system.
> 
> Agree, but it must be that way to be productive.
> 
>> As a worker one is reduced to an economic unit. Expected to become
>> part of a private/public economic system dominated by efficiency and
>> effectiveness (results) and where the highst achievable morality is
>> money (or money saving). One's social patterns (including responses)
>> are supposed to be 'suspended' for the daily 8 or 10 hours work one is
>> expected to put in.
> 
>> Perhaps I am a bit too negative but seen from intellect this may not
>> be untrue.
> 
> Again, true, but what has brought prosperity to the intellect-steeped 
> part of the world. 
> 
>> I notice in your post to Mary that the question runs as to which side
>> intellect will take...biology...society? As you muse:'...will the MoQ
>> join society to quell intellect?' I hope the MoQ will take hold and
>> keep on responding to Quality. When it does that it will also see that
>> it needs to look after its parents, grand-parents and great-grand
>> parents ( the social,organic and inorganic levels). The notion that
>> intellect has developed a momentum of its own must be halted/ checked
>> otherwise the rust-belt Pirsig describes in LILA will only get
>> worse.Imho. ( I am partially responding here to your comment that
>> 'Communism was a rational (intellectual) system...having wrecked havoc
>> etc . Capitalism is an irrational economic social system which has
>> brought great prosperity but at the same time also wrecking havoc...).
> 
> A MOQ-Social alliance is - well - possible on the grounds that social 
> value is what originally Phaedrus saw as Quality itself (Aretê in 
> ZAMM) and the intellectual level (in its SOM capacity) is what 
> opposes MOQ the most fiercely. You see how tough the notion of 
> "MOQ a mere intellectual pattern" is (Steve & Co) and as long as this 
> prevail SOM prevails. The tragedy is that Pirsig somehow is its origin 
> with his QUALITY/MOQ "metaphysics"
> 
> But what you write about the MOQ looking after its ancestors is just 
> right. The MOQ is the Q-context itself and only from there the 
> intellectual level is seen a MOQ-subset (not anything that can contain 
> the MOQ) and if this true context is realized things can develop the 
> good way. While the MOQ as something that can will occupy the 
> mindish-intellect and suppress rationality is dangerous. Why I fear 
> Steve's alleged defense of Pirsig as much as Marshas woolly 
> nonsense.       
> 
>> Something else yet Bodvar. In an earlier Popeye post (Dec.30) you say:
>> 'However - before the MoQ, while intellect were SOM- the S/O
>> distinction was regarded to be a bottomless, unbridgeable chasm, and
>> because we know that the subject and object (mind and body) interact
>> freely it vreated platypuses galore. This is how the MoQ resolves the
>> mind/matter paradox, not Pirsig's tedious method in LILA.
> 
>> Can you elaborate please? I don't quite follow...which 'tedious
>> method'?
> 
> 
> OK, the MOQ correctly profess to incorporate SOM under itself and in 
> this process resolving SOM's platypuses. If you have received LILA 
> you will find it as the (resolution of the) mind/matter platypus and in 
> Lila's Child (I'm out of town) as how SOM is encased. 
> 
> To begin with the last (from memory) Pirsig says that the inorganic 
> and organic levels are "objective" because they belong to the material 
> world, while the social and intellectual are subjective because they 
> belong to the mental world. Had he said: "From SOM seen the MOQ's 
> levels seem to fits these categories ...etc."  but no, it sounds as if 
> there IS a pre-existing "mental/material" distinction that the MOQ's 
> static levels is subordinated to. Besides ..."life"??.. is that an objective 
> state? Organisms are tangible, but the quality of being alive is as 
> ineffable as it comes.
> 
> Then the resolution of the mind/matter platypus. (still from memory). 
> where Pirsig's is based on the biological and social level being the 
> bridge between SOM's matter and mind. This presuppose that the 
> inorganic level equals "matter" and that the intellectual equals "mind" 
> which is wrong. Pirsig spends long passages in LILA to show that 
> inorganic value isn't "matter", but drops the same on intellect not 
> being "mind". All in all this explain s nothing, the matter/mind mystery  
> merely moved to between the organic and the social levels.
> 
> The obvious solution - dissolution better - is plain and simple, namely 
> the mind/matter paradox is created by the intellectual level while it 
> was SOM, making the S/O distinction a bottomless abyss that nothing 
> can cross - on one side everything is mind, on the other side 
> everything is matter. The MOQ shows that this is merely a static 
> distinction, the S/O is an aggregate - one is incomplete without the 
> other. Why Pirsig did not see the obvious (that Phaedrus saw by 
> making SOM=intellect)  is a mystery, but his obsession was that of 
> proving the unprovable Quality=Reality axiom and it left the MOQ an 
> unfinished symphony.
> 
>> Re my abode here in China, English spellings differ. Try perhaps
>> Shangzhou...follow road nr.312 east south east out of Xi'an. Along the
>> same road, farther east there is Danfeng etc. etc.
> 
> Will check when back.
> 
>> Re; 'where are the Chinese Q- basically? I will respond to this at
>> another time...if you don't mind.
> 
> Good, any time
> 
> Bodvar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...