[MD] Social Intellectual

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian, DMB and Mob. 

20 July 

Ian to John:

> > Intellect only leaves out the aesthetic leading edge IF we adopt some
> > limited dumb SOMist idea of what intellect is.

If hell bent on rejecting Phaedrus' revolutionary idea (in ZAMM that 
Pre-intellectual Quality had spawned Intellectual Quality) who am I to 
prevent you. "Intellect leaves out the aesthetic leading edge" what 
nonsense! Intellect is a static level - do we at least agree there? - and 
all levels have in turn evolved to a state of complexity that enabled DQ 
to bring Q-evolution to a new level. Why make intellect an exception? 
It had come to a point of complexity that enabled DQ to use the 
"unstable" intellect of Phaedrus to the last and final Q-metalevel itself.  
But after intellect's immune system had brought him back and 
stabilized him as Robert Pirsig, this fellow has done nothing but 
"defusing" the MOQ, and his henchmen work overtime to bring the 
term intellect back into its SOM role as an infinite "dynamic" mind.          

DMB :

> Right. I think that's the main idea behind the root expansion of
> rationality. 

If root expansion of rationality means root expansion of intellect DMB 
at least makes intellect = rationality = SOM, see the SOL keeps 
popping up. And DMB is too much of a thinker to deny the conclusions 
of his thinking as he demonstrated on the Babylonian Intellectual 
thread, but THEN blows his top over me. 

> The idea is to integrate a working concept of Quality, to weave it
> right into any intellectual endeavor. That's why the MOQ encourages
> philosophers to use rhetoric rather than rigorous rules or cool,
> bloodless logic. Which is not to say it's good to be illogical. It's
> supposed to be better than merely logical or correct.

Rationality - Intellect - must be kept high and dry as the highest static 
value, but subordinated a greater system that has the DQ/SQ matrix 
as existence's fundament. Your suggestion is outright dangerous: a 
science introducing rhetorics as criteria!!! The theory that wins a 
shouting contest is declared true. Ian may not know what is at stake, 
but DMB ought to.    

> To accuse the intellect itself or rationality itself as the problem is
> to confuse the disease with the patient. Thinking is not a disease.
> It's not the problem. It has a problem. Big difference.

Thinking as Q-Intellect! Apes as "intellectuals" How incompetent can 
one get? But from one who cant limit the lines of his posts one can't 
expect anything else. 


Bodvar