[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[MarshaV]

Mark,  

I disagree that _intellectual static patterns of value_ are other 
than subject-object oriented.  But I'm sure I'm over my restricted 
two posts per day so I'll not say more...  


Marsha



On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:07 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> I missed a lot of the discourse with Bo as I was on sabbatical from
> this forum.  However I did review some of the posts during that time,
> not nearly all of them of course.  I would have to agree with Horse
> here.  If that makes me disagree with Bo, I don't know.
> 
> MOQ seems to be expressed in these posts as SOM, that is the typical
> way of conversing, as I understand the concept. This occurs because
> conversation is a subject talking to an object.  While in conversation
> we use subjects and objects but MOQ rises from a deeper level which
> does not contain SOM, as well.  Experience and all that, all of which
> are parts of the intellectual level, fully integrated.  All these
> things come together along with some symbol manipulation to provide a
> personal world view to others.  To make the intellectual level SOM
> would be to confine it to simple symbol manipulation and I don't think
> that is appropriate.  SOM is just the final form prior to expressing
> it to others.
> 
> Now, it could be said that it is language all the way down
> (digital/analogue processing), but it certainly is not SOM language.
> Sudden insight (which is intellectual) comes from a mix, of which
> experience is one part.  While I am reading, I am not engaged in SOM,
> I am experiencing through it.  There is no SOM in listening to Wagner,
> yet it provides insight.  If Wagner is not intellectual, then he is a
> dilettante and not a creator.
> 
> Just to be disagreeable, I will also say that the intellect is dynamic
> quality in action, not one step removed as W. James may have said.
> 
> Don't know if this makes Bo wrong.  He might even agree with this for
> all I know.
> 
> In memory of Bo,
> Mark
> 
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
>> But the MoQ isn't the Intellectual level. Nor is SOM.
>> So the Intellectual level can contain both.
>> Box A (the Intellectual Level) contains Box B (MoQ) and Box C (SOM) - and
>> Box D and E and F..............
>> None of these boxes contain Quality but both MoQ and SOM as Intellectual
>> patterns of Value are contained within the larger box of the Intellectual
>> level. They are separate patterns.
>> So Bo's wrong.
>> 
>> Horse
>> 
>> (To be continued tomorrow - probably!)
>> 
>> On 07/12/2010 15:48, Platt Holden wrote:
>>> 
>>> Again Pirsig:
>>> 
>>> "You can't have box 'A' (the MOQ) contain within itself box 'B'
>>> (intellectual level) which in turn contains box 'A.' (the MOQ). That's
>>> whacko.   (Parens added.)
>>> 
>>> Bo's SOL is right.
>>> 
>>> (Under the rules this is my final post on the subject permitted today.)
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
>> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
>> — Frank Zappa
>> 
>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___