[MD] MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality

David M davidint at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Jan 2 08:14:41 PST 2006 

Hi Bo

Bo:
> I understand your way of looking on the SOM: Minus its "S" it is
> materialism, but this kind sounds more like "consumerism". A
> materialist can be as ascetic as a saint yet of the said conviction.
> When I wrote my "Quality Event" essay I used Francis Crick (him
> with DNA) and his (then) recent book "In Search of the Soul" as
> an example of the materialist search for mind from/in matter
> (brain). My point is that this does not eliminate the "S" at all.

DM: I did not mean consumerism, I take materialism as assert that
everything we experience/know can be explained in material terms.
But the concept of matter generally being used lacks all sorts of
qualities that cannot be reduced to the qualities that can be described
in material terms. I dismiss materialism as not being an adequate or
convincing description of experience, where experience=reality but
not simply space-time reality. I believe that as human beings we experience
many ideas that are not in space-time and are rather real in the sense of 
being
known as possible/imaginable.

Bo:
> Idealism, on the other hand, does as little eliminate SOM's "O".
> This is represented by those who think that mind creates matter
> or - worse - that it creates experience. See, matter prevails.  And
> we have people at this forum who believe that the MOQ belongs
> to this camp. OK, what I try to say is that neither the "S" nor the
> "O" of the SOM can be removed - one is dependent on the other
> - only the "M" is dispensable.

DM: Hegel's idealism is objective idealism not subjective idealism so I am
not sure he could be described in this way, and his thought is an advance on
Fichte for sure. The problem with Hegel is his failure to grasp the genuine
creativity of DQ. Hegel makes the creativity of DQ sound necessary, I
believe that when DQ allows new levels to emerge there is a genuine
choice made and that it embraces one possibility and rejects others. Why?
I think for the sake of quality/values is the best answer. Mind you there 
may be
a bit of hedonism in their too. As human beings we make choices in a related 
way.
But the extent to which nature is aware when giving flower to new SQ is hard 
to
say. SO do we need subjects and objects? I am not sure we do. Sure, 
historically,
the 4th level emerges full of SOM. But this is complex. The Enlightenment 
has
a rational and empirical side, romanticism and idealism emerges from it, 
there is
a battle against religious thought (much of which has more to say about DQ 
than
anything in enlightnement thought and science) and social authority. I can 
certainly
imagine using SQ/DQ terms and ditching S/O ones and yet still retaining 
philosophical
thought and science. Sure it is difficult not to use the short hand of 
objects rather
than table-patterns or electron-type-patterns, but at least we can relate 
these to
more complex patterns such as money-type-patterns, it sure helps us see that 
all
these patterns are groundedin our values  and experience and stops us 
imagining
that there is some god's eye view that is free of values and experience. I 
think it
would be good to more clearly recognise the values-experience groundedness 
of
our knowledge. Although I think it is also necessary to tell a full 
evolutionary story
of the cosmos to ourselves so that we can contextualise our thinking.

BO:
> I too "understand science in terms that do not rely on SOM", but
> definitely rely on the S/O distinction. There can be no science
> without it.


DM: Do we really need it? If the distinction is not about 2 different 
substances
what is the distinction? I agree that everything is an aspect of experience
(this is like the subject without any special content, i.e. all content is
simply experienced) and that within this experience we can use concepts
to identify SQ (what youmight wish to keep calling objects, but many 
patterns
involve non-physical aspects, e.g. money, even electro-magnetic waves are
not what you could call objects). I think Whitehead thought you could
do science without this distinction.

>
>> I suspect
>> that elsewhere you may have an on-going battle with
>> religious authority and therefore dare not throw
>> away the SOM ladder?
>
> This part of your message I am not able to decipher. Is "you" this
> person? Can you try again?

DM: I do not see why you think you have to retain the S/O
distinction and can'treplace it with DQ/SQ. Do you fear
a return to religious authority as a consequence?


>
>> There is a danger of going backwards,
>> but I suspect that going forwards is a going beyond of SOM
>> at the intellectual level. Your views only represent a particular
>> strategy it seems.
>
> Well, as the MOQ profess to replace SOM it necessarily goes
> beyond SOM, but ..."SOM at the intellectual level" No and no
> again, the intellectual level IS the (value of the) S/O distinction.
> There is nothing more to the 4th level than the S/O unless the
> MOQ turns into a mess.

DM: Just because the S/O divide played a role in creating
the intellectual level it does not mean it cannot be thrown away
after the climb. As an intellectual I think I need creativity, a set
of concepts, cultural-historical understanding, empirical evidence,
some logic, and ordinary human experience to get on with the job.
DO I need the S/O distinction for any of these?




>
> Maybe the term "intellect" is the stumbling block. To so many
> people it means thinking itself.
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <skutvik at online.no>
>> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality
>>
>>
>> > On 16 Dec 2005 at 20:20, David M wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bo
>> >
>> >> I suggest we do jettison SOM
>> >> into the dustbin of history.
>> >
>> >> Lets say:
>> >> rocks are patterns
>> >> plants are patterns
>> >> money is a pattern
>> >> theory of gravity is a pattern
>> >
>> >> we can all all thesae patterns SQ
>> >> lets call change and emergence DQ
>> >
>> >> and put them together and let's call it MOQ.
>> >
>> > David M.
>> > I agree with your choice of patterns, the theory of gravity is a 4th
>> > level pattern all right, but science and knowledge rests on the
>> > subject/object divide so it can't be "jettisoned" without existence
>> > dropping back to the third level (Dark Ages) and is why I am so
>> > exasperated with those who think intellect can be reformed to
>> > accommodate the MOQ. The S/O level must be kept clean and clear. The
>> > MOQ is the Quality Meta-reality that contains all levels and must
>> > necessarily be beyond - beyond intellect not the least.
>> >
>> > Bo
>> >
>> >
>> >> DM
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> >> From: <skutvik at online.no>
>> >> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> >> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 4:54 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [MD] MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Ian
>> >> >
>> >> > You spoke thus:
>> >> >
>> >> >> How could you possibly accuse Paul (or I) of working AGAINST
>> >> >> releasing intellect from anything.
>> >> >
>> >> > Releasing intellect? I spoke about him hindering the MOQ to tear
>> >> > loose from intellect's grip. Earlier you had written:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > The lesson is to recognise the child-like simplicity, not to
>> >> >> > learn something more intellectual, in order to unederstand.
>> >> >
>> >> > And I agreed, it's my very point to see the MOQ as something
>> >> > beyond the 4th level ("beyond intellect" sounds like giving up
>> >> > one's senses). And the SOL represents that child-like simplicity.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> In fact we have been constatly suggesting
>> >> >> it's your very act of setting up intelect as SOMism / SOL that
>> >> >> is creating that prison.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not me suggesting anything  but written all over LILA and
>> >> > ZMM. It has been confirmed by Pirsig. See the next paragraph.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> A fossilised pattern I called it. I couldn't be
>> >> >> working harder for the opposite if I tried.
>> >> >
>> >> > The SOM is "fossilised" all right, but the quality of the S/O
>> >> > divide cannot be jettisoned without us slipping back to the dark
>> >> > ages. Therefore it is best encapsuled as the 4th level. The
>> >> > original definition of this level as "mind" where ideas pop up
>> >> > and disappear is rejected and in the same letter Pirsig said that
>> >> > the Greeks "developed intellect" and this confirms that intellect
>> >> > is the S/O. How can this slow and inevitable move in the SOL way
>> >> > pass by unnoticed?
>> >> >
>> >> > I chose to ignore your parting "greeting", you are not the kind
>> >> > to revert to foul language or hurt silence when arguments fail.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 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/
>> >> >
>> >> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 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/
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list