From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 12:55:14 BST
Hi Khoo Hock Aun,
I'm sure other people will say the same, but for me, I just wanted to say an emphatic WELCOME to the
forum. It's wondeful to hear a non-western voice. I look forward to some mutually fruitful
conversation (once I've unpacked some more boxes).
Cheers
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "khoo hock aun" <hockaun@pc.jaring.my>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: MD Racism in the forum.
Hello, Squonk, Bo, Scott, Steve, Johnny, Joe and all
I find this thread fascinating. I have been following the forum silently for years "over here from
my box" but feel compelled to say something now.
Chinese society for instance has always considered itself culturally and morally "superior" to the
barbaric rest of the world. The Middle Kingdom assimmilated the cultures it came into contact with
(both as conquerer and the conquered) but left the barbaric rest of the world alone. Until western
science, technology and intellect manifested its imperial muscle to subdue the nation but not its
culture and society. Even when infected with communist ideology, the shared Chinese culture had a
"we are superior" edge to it. I believe this worldview still exists, in Greater China, Taiwan,
Singapore and the rest of the Chinese diaspora. So if Bo's views imply a position of cultural
superiority over the rest of the world, I dare say we are all guilty of it as well, perhaps for
different reasons. That is if we want to go down that road.
I am tempted to say that the Chinese, along with the Indians, Japanese and other hindu or buddhist
based cultures have long tangled with the subject-object divide and learned to live with it, so to
speak. The contemporaries of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Greece were the Buddha in India, Lao
Tze and Confucius in China. Buddhist philosophy has a distinct subject-object component but that is
not all to it. Lao Tze's metaphysics was about the "undefined" but Confucius sought to place a
cultural structure and order into Chinese society, caring less for what cannot be empirically
ascertained.
Back to the intellectual level, the mind is included as a sense-door in Buddhism in addition to the
other five, capable of generating concepts and constructions, that may or may not have relation to
reality itself. Transcending the mind, hence the intellectual level is a primary objective in
Buddhism. The dilemma that Pirsig presents after ZAMM and Lila and faced by this group is where do
we go from here? Undefined "quality" is itself the fifth level, the harmony we achieve when we take
down the intellectual scaffolding that brought us here. Having arrived at the height of intellect
how do we deconstruct it ? More intellect doesn't seem to be the answer.
And I do concur that this group needs to make a breakthrough from the intellectual circles that its
has found itself mired in. I hope this is one such rare opportunity.
Best regards
Khoo Hock Aun
----- Original Message -----
From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: MD Racism in the forum.
If an individual, or group of individuals hold a socially approved definition of what intellect or
intelligence is, and if that definition is culturally narrow, then the said group have arbitrarily
discriminated between cultures.
Further, if the definitions regard morally related evolutionary levels, then the discrimination is
along lines of moral superiority.
Its not rocket science is it?
Thus, the Skutvik doctrine asserts an over active office clerk is morally superior to Confucius.
The MoQ, however, describes intellect and intelligence as a relationship between DQ and Static
patterns, and as DQ is undefined, there is no definition of intellect outside the relationship. The
relationship is derived from an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.
The derivation began at a time no one can identify, but appears, from linguistic evidence, to have
begun with social ritual. Thus, using language to symbolise the wonder of social aesthetic is not
social aesthetic - it is intellect making its first foray into Human life.
Skutvik never discusses art or aesthetics - he does not have the conceptual vocabulary to handle
it. He does not have the conceptual vocabulary to handle it because his own definitions negate them.
It is little wonder when it comes to the East, Skutvik blithely talks of, 'these people' as if they
are over there somewhere in a box.
squonk
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sat Jul 12 2003 - 12:54:11 BST