[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[skutvik at online.no]

Platt and David M

Good to have you back Platt.    

On 17 Nov. you wrote:

> Quoting David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>:
> 
> [DMB]
> > To say that SOM equals intellect is like saying that a
> > transportation system is defined by the cargo it carries. Intellect
> > is a capacity, an ability and SOM is a product of that capacity. As
> > I see it, there is no good reason to think that trucks can carry
> > only one kind of cargo or can only take that load to one certain
> > place. It confuses form with content.  

> > DM: Thanks, I think that perfectly states the problem with Bo's
> > suggestion. 

David M 
How easy you are swayed by DMB, perhaps because you have no real 
understanding of the MOQ in the first place, least of all its 4th. level. 
The transportation system/cargo metaphor is SOM's view. The said 
system is its "intellect" that can carry all kinds of ideas. Carried over 
into the MOQ this makes for an intellectual level where SOM is a 
mighty cargo that took so much space that the former cargo - the 
alleged Aretê - fell off, but soon the MOQ will start to push SOM off, or 
perhaps keep some as "useful" for its own purpose. In this false view 
all is intellectual patterns. 

This is  the true view. The MOQ began as an above said "intellectual" 
idea in a SOM sense. But for a person being persuaded by it a magic 
transformation takes place, The MOQ becomes something that leaves 
SOM behind by its rejection of S/O (as existence's ground) and 
introduction of its own DQ/SQ - plus the four static levels. This 
transforms SOM into the static intellectual level ( the S/O minus  the 
'M') Yet, this is no small post but the highest and best. We may speak 
about subject and object, mind and matter ...etc. but when treating 
reality's innermost structure we must leave intellect and hike up to the 
MOQ's meta-level. The air is thin and I'm dizzy, but there seems no 
respite ;-)

Anyway, from the MOQ we see that the 4th. level's view of itself (while 
it was SOM) is that of objectivity rising above subjectivity. We also see 
what it regarded as "subjectivity" really is the social LEVEL which - in 
its own blind view - regards itself as an escape from the a-moral "dog 
eat dog" existence and sees intellect's "objectivity" as a deadly danger 
because of its looking upon religion and as an OBJECT for study 
undermines its hold on humankind. That the biological level and the 
inorganic are "blind" to the Quality overview is plain, it's the social 
level's and - particularly - intellect's blindness to the value context   
which is so difficult (for you) to recognize.       

> As I understand him, Bo says SOM is the dominant value of the
> intellectual level, not that SOM equals intellect. The levels are
> patterns of value separated by dominant and competing values, not
> valueless SOM categories like society and intellect.

No Platt, It's not so, I very much regard SOM all of intellect. It's just 
that in the MOQ the 4th level is not SOM, but the value of the S/O 
distinction. I don't know if this is possible to convey, but the snag is 
that in SOM the term "intellect" means a mental compartment that 
manipulate ideas and when this is transferred into the MOQ it screws it 
up.

Bo