[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[skutvik at online.no]

Scott, Mike & interested parties.

On 7 Jan. Scott wrote:

> Mike,

> Mike said:
 
> In other words, the MOQ is where the 4th level admits its own
> inadequacy, and even creates a structure of thought to demonstrate its
> own inadequacy - in the same way as society admitted its own
> inadequacy by relaxing its powers of coercion to allow individual
> liberty - which we now can recognise was done in the service of DQ.
 
> Scott:
> Seems to me that understanding that intellect can't describe/explain
> everything has been pretty much understood since ancient times (a rare
> exception would be extreme postivists who hold that what the intellect
> cannot understand doesn't exist, or at least can be ignored). 

I think you still believe that the 4th level is merely the materialist 
approach, but there are those who look to the subjective aspect 
of existence as true (David M's "objective subjectivity" comes to 
mind). The point is that the S/O distinction wasn't part of the 3rd. 
level's repertoire. There were no one who asked if the myths 
were true or just subjective nonsense (until the Greeks) nor 
anyone who replied that the myths might be subjective, but still 
true because reality exists only in our minds ...etc.

What Mike hopefully says is that either approach fails, if one tries 
the subjective approach, matter pops up as the unassimilable 
component, and if one takes the objective approach mind 
becomes a problem. Only as a static value level is the 4th. level's 
dualism reconciled. What you mean by "ancient times" is unclear. 
The 4th level came with the Greeks, the real "ancients" did not 
know the S/O distinction. Is it your old "dynamic" intellect that 
shows again?

> And
> there has always been a structure involved, e.g., God/Man/Nature.

In Christianity yes, and Christianity has always been heavily 
intellect (Aristotle) influenced.

> Further, the MOQ does not demonstrate the inadequacy of intellect

It shows the inadequacy of the SOM which has has begun to be 
accepted as the 4th level (what "intellect" is in your opinion is 
another thing). 

> just says there is this DQ that is undefinable, just as Christianity
> has said there is this God that is undefinable.

Christianity has done nothing but define God, but never mind, the 
MOQ begins by the postulation that Value is reality's ground and 
that it is DV/SV-divided. From this it follows that the 4th. static 
level's value is a limited "mundane" one, and everything he writes 
points to the S/O distinction ... not the dynamic mind or 
intelligence that you see the term intellect as.  

Bo