[MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

[X Acto]

Marsha & Bo, All

2 Sep. :

Ron: 

>  Bo posits that s/o is the way all thinking beings percieve reality,
> from earth to alpha centauri. he posits this as an absolute truth. one
> you apearently agree with. 

Bo:
It must be a deep-rooted tendency to equate intellect with thinking.This 
causes the INTELLIGENCE fallacy that blocks an understanding of the 
MOQ. All creatures above a certain neural complexity "think" and do 
so to enhance biological values. This biological neural apparatus is 
adapted by the social level where it mediates social values. Finally 
intellect adapted it to rationalize intellectual thinking  ... which is S/O  ... 
be it on earth or a remotest planet when if the 4th. level is achieved. 
This was what I said and meant, but what Ron's "intellect=intelligence" 
blinkers prevented him from seeing.  

Ron:
I think this debate is best illustrated by the comparison of "reason"
with "rationality" and logic. I believe you interpret the system of logic
as indicitave of the intellectual level while I maintain that the ability
to reason characterizes the intellectual level. I believe that reason
does not require thinking in terms of s/o but logic does. for example:


"In modern times, there is an increasing tendency to use the terms "logic" and "reason" 
interchangeably in philosophical discussion, or to see logic as the most pure or the 
defining form of reason.
Reason and logic can be thought of as distinct, although logic is one important aspect 
of reason. Reason is a type of thought. The word Logic involves the attempt to describe 
rules by which reason operates, so that orderly reasoning can be taught. The oldest 
surviving writing to explicitly and at length consider the rules by which reason 
operates are the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, especially Prior 
Analysis and Posterior Analysis.[2] Although the Ancient Greeks had no separate 
word for logic as distinct from language and reason, Aristotle's neologism "syllogism" 
(syllogismos) identified logic clearly for the first time as a distinct field of study. 
When Aristotle referred to "the logical" (hê logikê), he was referring more broadly to 
rational thought.[3]
Author Douglas Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher, Bach, characterizes the distinction in 
this way. Logic is done inside a system while reason is done outside the system by 
such methods as skipping steps, working backward, drawing diagrams, looking at 
examples, or seeing what happens if you change the rules of the system.[4]"

-wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Logic requires objective reasoning, it is constructed on the idea of concrete forms.
S/o is a construction built into our cultural glasses. If not, and it's the natural way
to see and interpret reality as a human being, then what is the use of MoQ?
Everything Pirsig says about SOM being an artifical construction, just "one of many ways
to interpret reality" is therefore wrong and incorrect and makes SOM correct, the natural
way humans see the world, other cultures are simply undeveloped. Other ways including
DQ/SQ are false, it makes seeing things as patterns a construction and seeing things
as objects natural. DQ/SQ is simply a construction invented by a man named Robert
Pirsig, he did not discover DQ/SQ under a microscope or in a supercollider he invented
it. So why disregard the natural way we percieve reality for one mans invention?
why call an object a collection of patterns? when an object is truer to our perception?