[MD] irony and socrates

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ian 

20 Oct. you said (as a PS)

> The irony Bo is that whilst I am trying to get you to acknowledge my
> simple point about there even being a problem with represnting
> intellect as being S/O thinking (full stop), is that all around us John
> and Arlo and others are trying to debate "Problems with Intellect in
> Society" - which is where we really should be devoting our efforts.
> Experience says there is a problem. 

I haven't participated in that thread (thought it was Arlo and Platt at 
each other's throats over some American political issue ;) but as 
always, to have some conflict with Q-social value, Q-intellect has to be 
SOM. And the best example is LILA about Q-intellect over-reaching its 
control of Q-society thus creating insecurity. I must resort to the "Q" 
because language is still not in Q-mode.     

In the previous post you wrote to me:

> > Stop making condescending offensive comments about me and stick to
> > the subject.You said ... "It will take time - see how long it took
> > for you to grab the intellect=SOM point ;-).If you agree?? But at
> > least you understand."

> > Jeez, I understood that the first time I experienced it - long
> > before I read Pirsig in fact - that the bleeding edge of intellect
> > (to use your words) at the time it was invented was SOM. At that
> > point in history SOM = Intellect. Never any disagreement.

"Bleeding"? "Leading edge" perhaps, but I have never spoken about 
any  leading - or trailing - edge of intellect . Anyway  "... at that point in 
history SOM=Intellect" ... as if there was a non-S/O-intellect at some 
earlier time  How many evasive turns are possible to avoid the 
obvious, namely that the 4th. - intellectual - level IS the S/O distinction. 
Was  from the outset and will remain so for ever. There weren't any 
"intellect" before the 4th. level.       

> > All we have ever been discussing is how to represent Q and MoQ
> > processes of expriencing, thinking and acting in a representation of
> > the MoQ.

If this is Pirsig's "Quality/MOQ"  - or DMB's "Quality/Concept" - super-
metaphysics" in a new  form, I find this the most un-MOQ-ish notion 
ever invented.  MOQ's very message is that SOM's "Objective- 
reality/Subjective representation" is fundamentally wrong  

> > Having a representation of the MoQ that says nothing about
> > these high quality ideas, and leaving the "high-ground" to SOMism,
> > seems a significant omission. How much time do you want to write
> > down your answer ?

I won't have any "representation" outside of the intellectual level whose 
value is the S/O (O/S in the 'Reality/Representation' case.

Virus and insult-scanned.

Bodvar