[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Mary]

Hi Bo,

[Bo] 
He spoke about Columbus leaving for America without knowing all about Europe
and us leaving for the MOQ without defining SOM, but that's untenable, SOM -
rationality - the mind/matter split and its many platypis was what put
Phaedrus on his quest and the solution of which is MOQ's very "raison
d'etre".
-----
Ah ha!  I see now what the problem is, and I agree with you.  Columbus'
experience and Phaedrus' are not analogous IMHO - or yours either.  If
you're going to spend 2 books railing against the S/O split, then you better
be able to define it, and further, if you are going to propose an
alternative metaphysics, you better be able to say where the S/O split
resides within it, OR be able to prove that the S/O split does not exist at
all. 

But isn't that second alternative the one Phaedrus chose to go with?  i.e.,
the S/O split is a fallacy?  Go with me for a minute on this.  

If you contend that the S/O split IS the Intellectual Level, then aren't you
saying the whole level is a fallacy?  I mean, maybe that's ok, because after
all, isn't the Social Level kind of a collection of fallacies too?
Fallacies only the Intellectual level above it can see.  

So to continue this train of thought, then the Intellectual Level could also
be a collection of fallacies that only something higher (like The MoQ
itself) can see.  Ok.  Kind of goes full circle.  Makes sense.

Why would Pirsig resist this?

- Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
skutvik at online.no
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:07 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium

Mary

9 Jan. u said
 
> To clarify the Intellectual level, would it be useful to explain what
> exactly it is that is missing in the early books of Bible?

Spot on and exactly what I did. I wrote to Pirsig and said if it wasn't 
pretty obvious that it was SOM which was missing from the "early 
books". I then received some nonsense about an "early SOM" such as 
warnings about crocodiles and promises from Javeh. I hate to say 
these things, but he understood that the SOL was inadvertently 
affirmed by himself, but instead of admitting it he then dropped the 
SOM which is so crucial for understanding the MOQ. He spoke about 
Columbus leaving for America without knowing all about Europe and 
us leaving for the MOQ without defining SOM, but that's untenable, 
SOM - rationality - the mind/matter split and its many platypis was 
what put Phaedrus on his quest and the solution of which is MOQ's 
very "raison d'etre".

Bodvar





















> 
> - Mary
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of KAYE
> PALM-LEIS Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 1:20 PM To:
> moq_discuss at moqtalk.org Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium
> 
> Krimel,
> 
> Mati: Point, counter point, Point counter, etc. ...  I think it is
> clear that you have a different perspective and understanding of what
> intellect.  But for now I will continue this process I don't really
> know to what end. :-)
> 
> > [Krimel]
> > Intellectual patterns are not thoughts, they are shared thoughts.
> > When Grampa Uga sat around the campfire spinning tales about the
> > Great Bear in the sky, his story was an intellectual pattern. It may
> > have served a
> social
> > function but it was an intellectual pattern.
> 
> Mati: I think it is great that you see that intelligence or as you say
> intellectual patterns served social patterns.  So when did
> intellectual patterns free themselves from the social level and how?
> 
> 
> > When Euclid consolidated mathematical thinking into "The Element"
> > the work he produced was an intellectual pattern. It is easy to see
> > that "The Elements" is a different from Grampa Uga's sky bear story.
> > But they are
> both
> > intellectual patterns just as a bronze tip is different from a stone
> point.
> > But all four, the book, the tale, the tip and point are all
> > intellectual patterns and they are all part of the intellectual
> > level.
> 
> Mati: I have read the "The Element" and likely written after Aristotle
> but I doubt that it had a direct impact based on s/o split given it's
> relative closness to time. But I could be wrong on this.  The question
> is to what end does the story serve? The social level or intellectual?
> 
> > [Mati:]
> > It was a basis from which the domination of social level had the
> > capacity
> to
> > end.
> >
> > [Krimel]
> > OK, look this "domination of social level" is not going to end. Not
> > now,
> not
> > ever. We are primates. Social patterns are encoded in our DNA. We
> > may be able to intellectually identify our social patterns and try
> > to modify them intelligently. But the best we can do is exchange one
> > set of social
> patterns
> > for another.
> 
> Mati: Social patterns are encoded in our DNA?  If a child is raised in
> the wild we clearly see a being that only beholded the biological
> level, there are no conventional social values.  He may be a social
> creature but he must learn those social patterns through some kind of
> communication/language that are beyound the biological level.  Just so
> you understand my background in education has provided me the
> experiences that reienforce the idea that we need to be able to
> communicate our social values in order for them to learn.  Without
> this communication bridge, conventional social patterns cannot have a
> chance to take hold.
> 
> > [Krimel]
> > Look around the world and you will find that every primitive culture
> > had arrowheads.  Snip.......
> 
> Mati: And I quote Pirsig...."  But if one studies the early books of
> the Bible or if one studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the
> intellectual level is conspicuously absent."
> 
> >SOM is an intellectual tool.
> 
> Mati: We agree, and more so it was a tool that was able to deliver us
> from the social level like no other tool we had before.
> 
> > But paintings and tools are intellectual patterns regardless of the
> function
> > they serve.
> 
> Mati: I once wondered the same thing. But that doesn't make sense
> related to timing and the dawn of intellect as a seperate level not
> beholden to the social level. So Art itself is not a litmus test for
> intellect.  Art is great, it is important and I believe that intellect
> perhaps can be conveyed through Art, but Art itself is not by it
> existence a default for intellect.
> 
> > [Krimel]
> > What ZMM and Lila show us is that like inorganic, biological and
> > social patterns, intellectual patterns evolve.
> 
> Mati: No Arguement.
> 
> > [Mati:]
> > MoQ is perhaps the first major metaphysical breakthrough in 2500
> > years,
> time
> > will tell.
> >
> > [Krimel]
> > The MoQ is merely a restatement and refinement of Taoism which has
> > been around for 2500 years. I think the clock has spoken.
> 
> Mati: In 2005 in Liverpool Pirsig was very gracious in saying that his
> ideas, MoQ are based on ideas that were not new.  But give him credit
> for uliminating SOM and giving us a formal metaphysical construct with
> MOQ. As to when it takes hold within society and we can point to
> changes accredited to it, well the clock just started ticking again
> .... :-)
> 
> Sincerely,
> Mati
> 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/
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 



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/