[MD] irony and socrates

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian 

12 Oct. you spoke "from glen to glen" ;-)

> No point speaking about mind-intellect as a way of distinguishing it
> from social - that's what I said - both involve (non definintive)
> mental aspects. It's now very old news how SOMist intellect evolved.
> The evolutionary history is agreed, we've agreed that a hundred times
> over almost a many years it seems.

"Mental"?! When did mental and corporeal (mind/matter) start to apply 
to MOQ static levels? Look to my "part 2" of the LILA quote (Oct. 9)  
wherein this point is treated.

NB!
This "part 2" is in the archives but did not show up in my "IN" box. Did 
you receive it? 
 
> Neither mental nor SOMist is a very useful definition of intellect
> (any more). My point precisely.Not useful because it doesn't tell you
> anything about how to recognize social and/or intellectual patterns -
> now.

Do we have a problem separating social and intellectual levels? Every 
single intellectual pattern is about debunking the social dittos, this 
aspect becomes clear once the SOL interpretation is realized

Thanks for the interest Ian.

Bodvar


















> Regards
> Ian
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:23 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > Ian
> >
> > 11 Oct.
> >
> > Bo before
> >> > "OK, maybe the best "conventional" (SOM-based) book, but the ever
> >> > best is LILA that conveys MOQ's view - had only the intellctual
> >> > level issue been settled, but I feel now that David Buchananan is
> >> > away that the SOL (intellect=SOM) is accepted, but you see the
> >> > trouble, all who read LILA and its ambiguous 4th. level grabs the
> >> > conventional "intellect = mind" interpretation. Your own position
> >> > here is unclear."
> >
> > Ian:
> >> So many things wrong.
> >> No one is accepting SOM as the definition of intellect, with or
> >> without Dave. And it's easy to see that the mental / mind realm
> >> covers both social and intellectual communication and
> >> representation - so no-one is making that mistake either.
> >
> > The same "effect" effects you. When Pirsig writes freely from MOQ's
> > premises the "SOM-intellect" emerges like the new particle from a
> > physicist's equation, but when asked directly it's so woolly that no
> > one can conclude anything. Paul Turner asked (in his letter of 2003)
> >  and Pirsig dropped the mind-intellect forcefully - he also said
> > that it was no use speaking about an intellect before the Greeks
> > ("Greek" in a MOQ context spells SOM) -  but to undermine this he
> > added the "manipulation of symbols" definition which is the
> > "thought-intellect" in a new guise and for good measure he threw in
> > the "Oriental non-S/O- intellect" different from the "conventional"
> > Greek intellect (as if there can be an "Oriental" biological- or
> > social level!) In a couple of posts I have pointed to proofs of
> > Pirsig's arriving at the SOM-intellect, and because no one protests
> > I concluded that there is a general agreement
> >
> > Bodvar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> 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/
> 
>