[MD] A fine mess

[Ian Glendinning]

OK, Bo, in your own time, I'm not going anywhere ;-)

You said
"I don't think you - Ian - can juggle with logic this way and get away with ..."
So why will you not therefore pick-up on where I address your
"logical" concerns, because I really am addressing those and those
alone ...

If my "simple" stuff looks trivial or crass drivel and my complex
stuff looks "unintelligible" drivel, give me a clue as to where to
take the logical argument.

(Don't however repeat the history of how SOMist intellect evolved from
the Greeks, and how MoQ fixes the problem ... I geddit already ...
Ron, DMB and plenty of others have published their MOQish theses on
this topic.)

Don't evade the logical concern, I am addressing that (and that only for now).

Where you say
""...the 4th level is a MOQ subset, thus the MOQ can't be an
intellectual subset ..."
This is your statement of the logical problem ... that always leads us
to the finger / moon, menu / meal reality / represented bind, the
logical bind I am trying to break for us.

Go back to your 2+2=4 quip about logic, and my simplest response to that.

Ian

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:00 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>