[MD] neener neener

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi John, Steve, All. 

10 Nov.

Steve (I believe) had said,
> >  It now seems clear that you have rather defined intellect too narrowly
> > when you restrict intellectual activity to "reflecting about
> > reflecting." 

If reflecting about reflecting is John's definition of intellect, it's SOM's 
alleged "self-consciousness". (My) MOQ would translate it into moqish 
like this: 

When Q-evolution reached the 4th. (S/O) level - and because the 
levels don't know any levels -  intellect looked upon the S/O distinction 
as fundamental, hence SOM. And from inside the 4th level (it looks as 
if) "thinking" takes place inside a mind and because the very same 
mind sees this context the "reflecting about reflection" emerged.

But this isn't the 4th. level as seen from the MOQ. Get it?         

John:
> Well, I don't look at the dictionary as the (heh-heh) definitive
> answer, but its a big help when I'm confused, as you point out I am.  
> So the dictionary defines intellect thusly:

    "The faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. 
    with regard to abstract or academic matters : he was a man of 
    action rather than of intellect. * * * * ..." 

> Which seems to pretty much confirm Bo's assertion, if you wanna 
> define intellect as *objective reasoning,* then intellectualism is
> SOM.  

Right, and what I have hammered on for decades (it feels) Pirsig says 
he did not bother to define the term because everyone is supposed to 
know, and yet "everyone" goes on and translates it into mere 
"thinking", thus when ancient people thought that lights in the sky were 
gods and goddesses, they were "intellectualizing". Nonsenical of 
course. 

An aside:
About "a man of intellect as opposed to one of action" is too bland. 
The Western world in an intellect-steeped culture so also men of 
action are under its spell - to find a social-steeped culture the muslim 
word is the best example.

> However, with my newly evolved formulation, the 4th level that has
> been labeled "intellectual" is one up on objective thinking because
> it's analytic of objectivity.  My formulation puts objective thinking
> on the THIRD level, not the fourth.  Think about it.  Any "object"
> must be necessarily defined by a subject.  S/O consciousness then
> arises any time there is any sort of social relationship.  In order to
> have a social pattern, there MUST be a self and an "other" in
> patterned relationship to each other.  Thus the mindset we call SOM
> has its arisal and being on the 3rd level rather than the 4th.

It's seems hard to get you (people) to understand the 4th. level 
(described as SOM's emergence in ZAMM) most lapse to something 
like you about that there always being individual "subjects" surrounded 
by objects, thus ancient "subjects" thinking about these "objects" 
constituted  a S/O consciousness. I hoped the "skeptical" aspect of 
intellect (that intellect meant a taking leave of the social level's 
mythological (god) reality)   would open eyes, but ... alas  Can't you 
browse (at least) through ZAMM's Geek part, there the 4th. level 
described so splendidly.   

> Stepping back and analyzing this S/O consciousness leads to
> transcendant realization that such S/O thinking is NOT fundamental to
> reality and this is the beginning of the 4th level, maybe more
> accurately labeled "the wisdom level". 

About S/O not being existence's "ground" is correct, but neither is it 
the "wisdom level". However the levels cannot be figured out from the 
static hierarchy. Pirsig had to have the QUALITY insight, i.e. that 
existence's ground is the DQ/SQ split and then - from MOQ's meta-
level - he could see , most of the all what intellect's true nature is - all 
these outlandish interpretations of "intellect" results from being stuck 
inside the 4th level. i.e stuck in SOM.  
 
Steve again:
> > Pirsig uses intellect as "simply thinking" rather than
> > "thinking about thinking." Thinking about thinking is philosophy,
> > the high country of the mind, and one brand of philosophy is
> > metaphysics, so it now makes sense that you could think that
> > metaphysics as first philosophy is the gateway to intellect.

Has it evaded you, Steve, that Pirsig forcefully (almost too much of a 
good thing) rejects the "thinking intellect" in the Paul Turner letter? 
That includes "thinking about thinking"  

This is all I can manage for to-day

Bodvar

























> Yes!  In fact, I remember yesterday as this was rolling around in my
> brain as I was driving, I thought of naming the 4th level the
> "metaphysical" level.  Or the "mystical".   The third level mental
> activity is concerning the physical world around us and how to
> manipulate it, and the 4th is on the metaphysical which contemplates
> manipulative thinking -  Thinking about "thinking about".  The instant
> you engage in speculation about the rules guiding the physical, you're
> into the 4th.
> 
> Therefore, as you say, Metaphysics is the gateway to the 4th.
> 
> 
> > This is one of the same
> > mistakes (one of several) that Bo makes in defining the 4th level as
> > the SOL. Suggesting that one must first engage in philosophical
> > thought before one can participate in other intellectual patterns is
> > backward. Philosophical thought is indeed rare, but everyone
> > participates in intellectual patterns. One must first be able to
> > think before thinking about thinking.
> >
> >
> 
> I don't know if Bo could buy into S/O being constrained by the 3rd
> level, but if he could I think it would solve our conflict.
> 
> Needs work though.  I'll go drive some more and continue my mystic
> contemplation of reality.
> 
> Thanks for the dialogue Steve!
> 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/
> 
>