[MD] irony and socrates

Ian Glendinning ian.glendinning at gmail.com
Fri Oct 16 06:35:29 PDT 2009 

So, at last we return from whence we came  ...

All the interesting stuff (anything that's better than S/OM) is in
this thing you call the DQ/SQ "arrangement".

Where is this "arrangement" what's it "made of" ?
And when we "consider" it, talk about it, debate it in our thoughts,
actions, experiences, writings and e-mails what do we call this
philosophical activity - this "quality thinking" beyond SOM Intellect
?

Regards
Ian

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
> 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