[MD] What's missing

[skutvik at online.no]

Mati and Magnus and Multitude.

On 21 Mar. Mati wrote to Magnus who had said to me,

> > "What I don't agree with is your claim that the *only* paradigm that
> > fits in the 4th level is the S/O paradigm. I refuse to believe that the
> > MoQ is the first world view that doesn't use the S/O division as the
> > primary one, and isn't that what you're claiming?"

> Mati: I have been thinking about is how the S/O divide provided a new
> basis from which reality was defined.  Prior to the Aristotle's divide
> there is a lot of activity which looked and smelled like intellectual
> activity. The fact as I see it, it was intellectual activity; however
> I feel that this activity itself does not qualify as intellect. All
> this intellectual activity in itself does not have the capacity to
> sustain itself beyond the social level until the s/o divide occurs.

I agree very much with Mati . An example of this - er - fuzzy 
social-intellectual borderland is what we call mathematics. Pre-
intellect level people*) used advanced calculation in building and 
commerce that is plain.

*) Problem is that Magnus doesn't see any pre-intellect age at all, 
but these deliberations are from the MOQ premises.

For example, it is said that Pythagoras learned about the 
hypotenuse squared ...etc. on his travels to Egypt, but while the 
Egyptians just used measuring rods and "seat of the pants" 
knowledge Pythagoras sat himself the task of showing by 
diagrams why and how this was an objective truth ... and this is 
intellect!. Thus calculation is one of the social level activities that 
intellect adopted for own development and afterwards sees as 
indigenous. 

The above is Mati's "soft interpretation", my own tendency to  
"strong" stuff says that all intelligent activity becomes "intellect" 
seen from intellect and nothing is intellect seen from the social 
level. It's only from the MOQ this level context becomes visible 
and from there no none-S/O intellect is possible because intellect 
isn't a thinking subject, but the subject/object DISTINCTION.           

> Now the question is after the s/o divide does SOM itself become the
> primary taproot for all intellect prior to MOQ.  I would suggest yes
> because any intellectual thought that enters the philosophical arena
> to test the value of its existence it is beholden to the S/O for
> validation. Look at any methodology textbook and any philosophical
> notation works it way back to s/o. 

Exactly.

> The problem is that science, as a
> form of intellectual thought, creates problems for the validation via
> S/O.  

Even better, SOM's shortcomings is explained by its becoming 
MOQ's 4th. level which - as static level goes - are incomplete and 
when examined below a certain depth they fail/dissolve.    

> Today many of the sciences have all but divorced themselves  from
> philosophy for that very reason.  MOQ has Pirsig suggests in LILA, MOQ
> is a far more friendly philosophical paradigm in which the validation
> of the scientific intellectual thought can occur.

You are right. However it's mostly physics that has aspired to 
philosophy, but all science is from the same S/O "taproot" and 
have the same static limitations in a MOQ context. However the 
MOQ does not interfere with the 4th. level's workings. Pirsig's 
idea about a Q-variety of the various disciplines is not necessary.    

> Just a thought, 

Keep thinking dear Mati

Bo