From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 18:39:37 GMT
Sam,
I was about to reply to a much earlier post of yours on this thread when my
computer crashed, so consider this a general response to your overall scheme
to replace the characterization of the fourth level as "intellectual" with
"eudaimonic" (earlier "individual"). In brief, I think it is wrong, for two
reasons, both of which revolve around the significance of intellect.
Several times you (and others) characterize the intellectual level as
"logical " and "rational". While not incorrect, this misses the significance
of the intellect in human evolution. That significance is that the
intellectual level creates subjects and objects. (Yes, I am promoting
SOLAQI, though I find Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances" invaluable
for understanding why this point is central). The individual, and hence
eudaimonic promotion, depend on the intellect having made that split of
reality into subjects and objects.
Now, having lived with that split for hundreds of years, to the point of
believing that that split is absolute (SOM), we are beginning to see its
limits (as mystics have from the beginning), and start wondering about the
next level,and it is that next level that Jesus et al are (trying to)
reveal. The significance of the prologue of St John's gospel is, in my
opinion, that the way to the next level is to realize the intellectual level
in its mystical fullness (this is my perennial argument with John B.), which
means we can't attempt to downplay it. Which brings me to my second reason.
It is that, like John B. and Squonk and others, I think you are falling for
the SOM view of intellect, that it is somehow opposed to art, compassion,
and the like, that is only the subject thinking about objects. And yes, this
is what is implied in the dictionary definitions. But that is because in our
fallen SOT state we have only the palest reflection of true intellect.
Rather, I think we should view our intellectual level as a tiny appendage of
the true intellect, what St. John calls the Logos and Plotinus calls Nous.
In sum, I think both MOQ *and* Christian theology lose immensely by
downplaying the intellect.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 10 2002 - 18:40:16 GMT