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

[John Carl]

Yo, Bo,


> Is energy "matter"?  Light?  Gravity?  Nope, tho E=Mc2 says they're
> > related.
>
> No, but my point was that neither matter-as-energy nor the so-called
> "forces of nature" has anything to do with MOQ's "inorganic patterns
> of value".


Why not?  They must be some part of reality.  Gravity isn't life, it's not
social and its not an intellectual pattern.  The laws of gravity are
intellectually derived formulations, agreed, but the force of gravity was
certainly around before life, society and intellect.



> Pirsig was perhaps too old even when he wrote ZAMM and
> thought that the SOM's "objective horn" was the difficult one to
> overcome, but "as every schoolboy knows" these day the world of
> objects has long since dissolved. It is the "subjective temptation"
> which is MOQ's enemy, that of believing that Quantum Physics
> proves that the experimenter's mind determines the outcome ... you
> know all that New Age jazz.
>


yeah, all that "new age jazz" with which SOMism has no way of coping,
understanding or explaining.  I don't see that as MoQ's enemy, I see that as
MoQ's opportunity.


>
> What I am striving to bring across is that "nature, included forces, and
> whatever - be it ever so immaterial - is the intellectual level's
> business. This may not be any revelation,



Not  a revelation , if you want plains talk, but rather a blunder.

The intellectual's main business is social.  Always has been, always will
be.  We kicked around some talk about scientist cooking the books in favor
of global warming theories a while back, and I argued that scientists are
not motivated much by "getting rich".  I stand by that.  What does motivate
scientist types is, prestige and social pressure.  A higher place in the
academic hierarchy.  What bums 'em out is getting blasted by their peers for
crappy science.  What thrills 'em is getting their name plastered on a new
theory that will go into the text books.  The money is a nice fringe
benefit, but it's social pressure that drives your average scientist and
it's social patterns which concern him the most.


but it seems harder to
> fathom that mind or "the spiritual" realm also is an intellectual
> creation. The moment the 4th. level arrived on the scene with the
> Greeks and began its "objective" crusade against the old Social
> (Aretê) reality which it deemed illusory - subjective - it had created the
> subject/object aggregate. The Social Age (wen it was cutting edge)
> knew no such thing.
>
>
This seems so far off Bo, I don't know how you can think that the social
level is oblivious to subjects and objects.  The Social level is nothing BUT
the jockeying of subjects for dominance or manipulation of objects for
gains.  SOM is taking this S/O aggregate as ultimate reality, but the S/O
aggregate is a 3rd level phenom.  Think about it.  How can you have any sort
of social pattern without subjects manipulating objects?



> John:
> > And the 4th level is not mind but "mindfulness".
>
> No, it is the Mind/Matter distinction ... the value of this .. which has
> brought modernity and prosperity to the Western World. Full stop!
> Ancient people could not be mindful before they realized that they
> had a mind that could be aware of a body and a world.


As long as there have been people, some have asked themselves about reality
and self and some have asked, "what's for lunch?"  You need both types in
human society.



> > However Bo, I still don't see how you can deny 4th level mindfulness
> > to so-called "primitive" cultures when the people in these less
> > developed societies had more time on their hands to think about
> > themselves, the stars and the cosmos. ...
>
> I don't deny thinking, intelligence has been around since two brain
> cells started to communicate, Jeez I am the one who HAS maintained
> that ancient people were as intelligent as ourselves and constructed
> complicate cosmologies based upon their GOD-RULED premises.
>


And some, who just wanna know when lunch is, just followed the rules laid
out by their elders.  Others, who asked "Why?" and "where do these gods come
from anyway?" were there in the wings as well.

If the MoQ is correct, then there are four levels and there have always been
four levels of being in human experience.



>
> ;-) There surely were wiser and dumber variants, but I don't think the
> most primitive existence could afford any thinkers. And what's for
> sure is that there were no skeptics around who said "is this objectively
> true?"
>

You are very sure of this and I'm very sure you are wrong.  How to decide
which of us is right?  Take a vote?  Nah, that'd be settling an intellectual
debate through social politics.  I've laid out my reasoning for you; would
you mind laying out your reasoning for me?  Why do you assert this so
factually?  Especially in the empirical basis of leisure time.



>
> Can't you brief me on his deliberations on the "logical roots" or quote
> some passages. This has really stopped me in my track..
>
>
See posting to Magnus for some of this, but I haven't gotten to that point
in the Kuklick book yet, which contains key aspects of what you're asking
for.




> > Right now I'm too fascinated with his (Royce's) discourses on
> > California History to go hunting troubles in the high country of the
> > mind.  But good luck to venturesome travelers yearning for the rarer
> > air.
>
> I read Royce's on the Sacramento Valley and about his evaluation of
> himself, and I guess we all feel much of the same alienation. There
> aren't many who participate in philosophical discussions in these
> "facebook" times.
>
>
I got no beef with facebook or any form of communication which is two-way.
 My beef is with centralized tv programming which is one-way and devolving
our world into collections of  brain-dead idiots incapable of sustained,
rational thought.

Oh well.  At least there's beer.

When's lunch?


John