[MD] A fine mess

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ian.

9 Dec you wrote

I had said
> > "I understand [intellect] as THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT/OBJECT
> > DISTINCTION"

Ian 
> I also understand that as the distinguishing feature of intellect when
> it emerged emerged (historically), but it didn't stop evolving there.

Of course intellect has evolved, immensely so, but it was some basic 
"formula" -  like the biological evolution beginning with some 
reproduction formula whose first form were bacteria and such, yet 
ended with the immense complex mammal organism.  

And intellects basic formula is - as described n ZAMM - the S/O, 
beginning as the first gropings for something beyond the social level's 
god-reality that soon found its well-known pattern

    Parmenides made it clear for the first time that the Immortal 
    Principle, the One, Truth, God, is separate from appearance 
    and from opinion, and the importance of this separation and its 
    effect upon subsequent history cannot be overstated. (ZAMM 
    Corgi Paperback p. 366) 

The first major stage was the Truth/Appearance dichotomy and then 
through countless stages reached its "final form" with the mind/matter 
form and it's many off-shoots.   

Bo also said
> > "the 4th level is a MOQ subset, thus the MOQ can't be an intellectual
> > subset, that's for sure."

> Logically true with your definition Bo, and equally logically, not
> necessarily true with mine. You are simply taking a very static
> (SOMist) view of the various MoQ items we are talking about including
> MoQish intellect, which in fact does not exist in your interpretation.

I don't think you - Ian - can juggle with logic this way and get away with 
calling it "static". The container logic were used by Pirsig to 
demonstrate that the Quality Reality can't be contained by the 
Subject/Object Reality and my "...the 4th level is a MOQ subset, thus 
the MOQ can't be an intellectual subset" .. is a variant of that 
argument.

Bo.