[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Whoa yourself Mary ;-) 

You must give me  a chance to respond.

You said to Andre
> I am still having trouble understanding what the S/O split actually is
> as it relates to the MoQ, and have asked Bo to define it.  We shall
> see. 

and 9 Jan.you said to me::

> Is it possible that we actually agree on what the Intellectual level
> is?  I take you to see it as empirical, scientific logic.  Yes?  

Before I start a "caveat": It is the intellectual level I'm talking about, 
but because it didn't know its Quality "role" before the MOQ revealed 
the said context, thus I use the SOM term most of the time.   

Yes, the scientific, skeptical attitude has been intellect's most 
prominent pattern since enlightenment, but we must understand 
SOM's early forms (described in ZAMM) and how science developed 
from these early premises. 

The proverbial Greeks began their search for principles more basic 
than the mythological gods. Only this spelled revolution. It's like 
suggesting to a Muslim that there is something that even Allah is 
subordinate to. Shocking!  

The most fundamental principle which emerged was TRUTH, i.e.  the 
mere notion of a  "bottom" to existence that humans can fathom. 
Now, truth begs a counterpoint; the untrue or illusory and here we see 
the first vague outline of SOM. Then Plato who deemed IDEAS to be 
true  while SENSES constantly deceives us  

Don't let the fact that this looks opposite to latter-day SOM disturb 
you, SOM is the "real versus illusory" distinction in whatever form. 
The next big shot - Aristotle - said that "substance" was real with 
"form"  the illusory counterpart.. And here Pirsig says that our modern 
scientific understanding was born. By  fits and starts SOM developed 
further and via Descartes it reached its modern present "mind/matter" 
stage with mind the illusory and matter the real.. 

End of lesson 1 (to be continued) 

Bodvar