[MD] MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality

[ian glendinning]

Bo, Mike, Paul, comments embedded [IG] ...

On 12/8/05, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Hi Mike.
>
> On 7 Dec. you wrote:
>
> > Bo, this is just a brief message of support.
>
> > > Again, ZMM sees the early search for principles beyond the
> > > myths as the embryonic S/O. The principles "objective" and the
> > > old myths just "subjective". When will this sink in?

[IG] to be worth sinking in, it would have to have some truth value.

>
> > Soon, if you continue to explain yourself as succinctly as this!
>
> I needed this. Thanks, you made my day..
>
> > The following is worth quoting too:
>
> > >     "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between
> > >     intellect and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by
> > >     embedding all of them in a larger system of understanding.
> > >     Objects are inorganic and biological values; subjects are social
> > >     and intellectual values.  They are not two mysterious universes
> > >     that go floating around in some subject-object dream that allows
> > >     them no real contact with one another.  They have a
> > >     matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship." [LILA, p344]

[IG] This is much quoted on MD. I think in the middle sentence it
should be read more carefully. He is referring to GOF subjects and
objects to make a point, not extolling or commending them to us. More
like "GOF SOMism would see Objects as what MoQ calls inorganic /
biological values. GOF SOMism would see Subjects as what MoQ calls
social / intellectual values" The only significance of subjects and
objects is their evolutionary relationship. Come down out of the trees
guys, the enlightenment's lovely. Some of our intellects have evolved
and left subjects and objects behind, where they belong. A pattern
fossilised in the intellect of earlier generations, somewhere low down
in the 4th layer.

>
> > > The impossible thing about this way of "encasing" the SOM inside the
> > > MOQ is that it sounds as if SOM still is valid: that societies are
> > > in our minds and that biology is "out there". This is out of tune
> > > with the MOQ that has declare the SOM nil an void.  and consequently
> > > can have no relevance to its own levels this way.
>
> > This is of crucial importance.
>
> It's good that there are thinkers still around Mike.

[IG] Aaaggghh, so people who agree are thinkers, I geddit.

I regret if it
> sounds disloyal to object to Pirsig's utterings, but I can't help
> criticize what grates my Q-nerve. The said "encasement" is no
> mere uttering, but part of the canon and it was only after it
> appeared in the "Subjects, Objects ..." paper that its dubious
> nature dawned on me. I excused it as Pirsig accommodating to a
> somish audience, but he denied that in "Lila's Child" .... alas.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Bo
>
>
> 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/
>