[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ian

July 31. 

I had said:
> > "Listen. ZAMM (in retrospect) rips the metaphysical rank from SOM by
> > postulating a deeper reality of which SOM (now merely the S/O
> > distinction) is a fall-out. In the full-fledged MOQ - with intellect the
> > S/O aggregate - we see the enormous impact the MOQ will have on Western
> > philosophy. With one stroke the trail of paradoxes that SOM has left
> > since the Greeks - climaxing with Kant - dissolves. They emerged because
> > the S/O was regarded as fundamental - as the meta-reality."

Ian: 
> I agree totally. Of course where you use the word "intellect" I read
> SOMist Intellect, not the whole of the future possibilities of the MoQ
> Intellectual Level. 

You know me and will not take offense if I call this nonsense. The 4th 
level is static and can't have "future possibilities" different from the 
present which is - and will remain - the S/O distinction. It's like 
speaking of the 3rd. level's "future possibilities". Once it was formed it 
could only evolve inside its framework . The first stone age cultures 
were the same social value that underlies modern day societies, their 
"modernity" is intellect overriding social value (and - Pirsig's 
complaint - doing it so throughly that is causes social insecurity).

This goes for intellect too, the new-born value that drove Plato and 
Aristotle to their enormous achievement is the same that dominates 
our outlook so totally that we have problems escaping it ... i.e. 
understanding the MOQ, believing that "intellect" is a mental mindishl 
compartment that contain ideas, may shed old ideas and adopt new 
ideas in the future!!!!!. 

> BTW I never miss opportunities to put a bomb under those who
> misrepresent the world in S/O terms - please be careful with your
> criticisms of "all".
 
You speak of S/O terms, but that's exactly what your "future 
possibilities for intellect" implies; a subjective mind-intellect that in the 
Stone Age harbored "stone age" ideas and then as the times changed 
adapted to ever new ideas and possibly will harbor the MOQ as 
another idea, and nothing is gained, SOM prevails.  

> But your are no different to Matt and the rest of us (everyone except Doug
> Renselle) using S and O "predicate" language in normal intelligible
> discourse - it's not wrong, it's useful. We're dropping the meyaphysical
> rank of S/O and remembering to avoid all the S/O paradoxes - recognizing
> them as illusions and confusions of past understanding.

I agree with using language's long-ingrained "intellectual" terms that 
include mind and matter in normal discourse, but right now we are up 
in the high country of metaphysics and yours about "future 
possibilities of intellect" does not sound of MOQ understanding to me.    

> Note Matt and DMB both using the more discursive style - to pepper the
> concepts with a variety of words - so as not to get hung up on precise
> objective links between word and concepts. Natural language is S/O.

"Natural language"? The proverbial Stone Age people had language 
but it had no intellectual-content. This is the "temptation" of identifying 
Q-intellect with language - with thinking or intelligence. Pirsig in the 
PT letter spoke about the Old Books of the Bible as lacking 
intellectual content and that's correct. The prophets did not speak 
about "..in my mind" and " ...I think" or anything like that. I pointed to 
Pirsig that this can be seen as lack of SOM as well, but then he ...   

> Until we invent new language, or can bear to suspend concerns for any
> objective definitional logic in current language, I can't see any
> alternatives, even from you - except doing more doing than talking.

If/when the MOQ becomes our outlook language will adapt to it no 
doubt, but talking will continue. 

Sincerely

Bodvar