[MD] irony and socrates

skutvik at online.no skutvik at online.no
Fri Oct 16 05:55:12 PDT 2009 

For Ian

16 Oct.:

> OK, Bo so for you ALL intellectual patterns and better than social
> patterns. ALL intellectual patterns are S/O based. 

Yes, intellect is the highest static level and thus its patterns are "better"  
than any social pattern - that's MOQ dogma. And finally the SOL point 
is clear: All intellectual patterns are S/O.    

> So ANY S/O pattern is better than ANY Social PoV in your world ? Are
> there ANY patterns anywhere that are better than S/O ? (Please don't
> guess what I know, just answer the questions.) Ian 

You have it just right, because (I postulate that) intellect = SOM and 
we know that the 4th. level is higher than the 3rd. it follows that any 
S/O pattern is better than any social pattern ...anywhere in the 
universe. 

Yet, intellect is a static level and subordinate to the overall DQ/SQ 
"arrangement", that point must be clear too. 

Bodvar









> 
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:24 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > 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