[MD] irony and socrates

skutvik at online.no skutvik at online.no
Fri Oct 16 01:24:33 PDT 2009 

Ian 

15 Oct.

> Bo, you still didn't answer any of my questions directly. (The first
> two were closed - yes/no) Anyway you then offered "What you "know" is
> that a subject/object metaphysics has invaded an otherwise neutral
> innocent container called "intellect" and that SOM can be removed and
> replaced by the MOQ. That's the way you understand it ...no?" 
 
> Hell no - how dare you - how crass an idiot do you accuse me of being.
> These are the insults I am talking about. Insults against the idea
> that we were ever having an intelligent conversation. 

Calm down Ian. The issue is and remains if the intellectual level is 
SOM - all of it, every last bit - or if SOM is one intellectual pattern and 
the MOQ another intellectual pattern. Can I have YOUR answer 
please?

> Now here's a clue - look at the questions I actually asked.
> Need a further clue ? My answers to #1 and #2 are No and No.
> Please answer them and stop hurling insults.

# 1. "Are all social PoV's in need of debunking"

You must be way off moqwise if your answer is "NO". Each level's 
purpose is to "debunk" - in the sense of controlling -  the lower level.   

# 2. "Are all intellectual PoV's free of social prejudices" 

This is plain "NO".  

> Then we can move on to #3 - and the massive complex interaction between
> SoMism and MoQism in patterns ranging across the social and
> intellectual levels. The footnotes to Plato. 

# 3  "How can we tell a good intellectual PoV from an inferior social 
PoV?"  I answered that the moral code between society and the 
intellect is crystal clear. Where "moqism" enters I don't know.     

> Of course it's the "intellectual framework" that's wrong - I've stated
> that 5 or 6 times now (to agree with you) in this thread. 

This is identical to my initial question above. If (you mean that) 
intellect's framework is S/O and S/O alone. Not a mind  that can turn 
DQ/SQ at short notice. 
   
Bodvar 



















> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:47 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > For Ian
> >
> > 14 Oct.:
> >
> >> Hi Bo, leave off the insults I asked several simple open questions,
> >> which you ignored. You see your intelocutors as ensnared in
> >> GOF-Intellect's tentacles. I just see you in that bind.
> >
> > And I answered them  one by one, without a trace of insults. They
> > were:
> >
> > #1:  Are all social PoV's in need of debunking
> >
> > #2: Are all intellectual PoV's free of social prejudices
> >
> > # 3  How can we tell a good / intellectual PoV from an inferior /
> >        social PoV ?
> >
> > # 4 (How do we do any of that if intellect = SOM ?)
> >
> > But if my "crime" is that all questions requires the SOL
> > interpretation to be properly answered, what can I do?
> >
> >> The Pirsig quotes are recognized and clear ... even the one you
> >> double quote / highlight thus :
> >
> >    "It is the intellectual framework with which one deals with the  
> >  data that is at fault. The fault is within subject-object  
> >  metaphysics itself."
> >
> >> We know this.
> >
> > What you "know" is that a subject/object metaphysics has invaded an
> > otherwise neutral innocent container called "intellect" and that SOM
> > can be removed and replaced by the MOQ. That's the way you
> > understand it ...no?  But Pirsig says "It is the intellectual
> > framework ... that is at fault"
> >
> >> It's the starting point for a discussion. It tell us the problem
> >> clearly enough, but it doesn't tell us any solution. ie That GOF
> >> SOMist kind of intellect framework is at fault; what does a better
> >> / MOQish "intellect" look like?
> >
> > "A better MOQish intellect" means the said  "container--intellect"
> > filled by the MOQ  ... no?   The 4th. level is a sub-set of the MOQ,
> > bu no twist and bend of logic can this contain the MOQ. Study the
> > "container" passage in LILA!
> >
> >> You don't even have to call it intellect if you want to reserve
> >> that term for the GOF mental / SOMist kind.
> >
> > ??????????????
> >
> > Bo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> (Clearly it is more than the mental - how often do we have to agree
> >> that ?) Regards Ian
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> >> > For Ron
> >> >
> >> > 12 Oct.
> >> >
> >> > Ian to Bo:
> >> >> > Some hope : You suggested. "Every single intellectual pattern
> >> >> > is about debunking the social [PoV's]." Nice idea. A
> >> >> > hierarchical relationship of Intellect over Social - which is
> >> >> > where we started. But, so many questions. Are all social PoV's
> >> >> > in need of debunking ? Are all intellectual PoV's free of
> >> >> > social prejudices ? How can we tell a good / intellectual PoV
> >> >> > from an inferior / social PoV ? (How do we do any of that if
> >> >> > intellect = SOM ?)
> >> >
> >> > Ron:
> >> >> Great questions Ian, How IS any of that done if intellect equals
> >> >> SOM. SOM equalling intellect is already the universaly agreed
> >> >> apon assumption.
> >> >
> >> > Yes I know that you all regard SOM as ONE intellectual pattern,
> >> > but the point is that for the MOQ to make sense its intellectual
> >> > level has to be SOM. Regrettably I don't take notes of all
> >> > indications of this interpretation in Pirsig's writings, but the
> >> > latest was
> >> >
> >> >    Pirsig in LILA: "There is the materialist school that says
> >> > reality    is all matter, which creates mind. There is the
> >> > idealist school    that says it is all mind, which creates matter
> >> > [....]  It is the    intellectual framework with which one deals
> >> > with the data that    is at fault. The fault is within
> >> > subject-object metaphysics itself.
> >> >
> >> > "It is the intellectual framework with which one deals with the
> >> > data that is at fault. The fault is within subject-object
> >> > metaphysics itself.
> >> >
> >> > I can of course not force you don't see the obvious, intellect's
> >> > tentacles are tough and the toughest one is the term "intellect"
> >> > that indicates mental and - consequently - intellectual patterns
> >> > as ideas or thoughts - of which the MOQ is one - but as said: The
> >> > subject/object distinction (in all its forms) is abolished,
> >> > "intellectual patterns" aren't mental patterns but the value of
> >> > the MENTAL/CORPOREAL distinction.
> >> >
> >> > But now I understand that you neither care about Pirsig's
> >> > writings nor my interpretations of these writings. So good-bye to
> >> > you.
> >> >
> >> > 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > 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/
> 
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list