From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 06:13:17 BST
Hey Bo and all,
> (me prev.)
> > Rick correctly observed that the static hierarchy is
> > > NOT post-intellectual-LEVEL. What he calls "intellect" is of course
> > > the dynamics that brought Intellect out of Society.
>
> > R
> > No. That's not what I was calling "intellect". The "intellect" that
> > I was referring to is something that exists prior to all 4 levels and
> > DQ (prior to any categorizations of experience at all!), and
> > subsequent only to the one, undivided Quality.
B
> Here we go again about the map metaphor. Is there a terrain that the
> SOM and the MOQ are maps over? In my opinion not, a metaphysics
> IS the ultimate reality and we end up in the infinite regress problem
> here unless that is heeded.
R
A metaphysics is the ultimate reality? Metaphysics is a description Bo.
How can a description be the ultimate reality?
B
Lower down you say that Quality is the
> one undivided reality ...etc. so what - then - is that "intellect" prior
to
> DQ?
R
The "intellect" prior to metaphysical divisions is the awareness created in
a Quality event. This is a topic that Johnny and I have been discussing in
the "Novel/Computer hierarchy" thread. Check my last few posts in that
topic for my thoughts on this.
B
> Such a "superintellct" is also an intellectual patterns and require a
> hyper-super intellect which precedes IT ..and so on.
R
You're apparently being confused by the equivocal use of the term
'intellect' (another topic Johnny and I have been discussing in the other
thread). I see no reason why such a regress is implied by my explanation.
B
You (all) refuse
> the SOL-interpretation that cuts this Gordic clean off and continue to
> look upon reality through intellect's glasses which creates this infinite
> regress of "intellects".
R
I can't speak for anyone else, but I refuse SOLAQI for the same reason
Pirsig does. As I understand it, it makes the 4th level far too narrow to
agree with my experience and inexplicably squeezes the MoQ itself (another
description) out of the 4th level.
B
> And the annotating Pirsig hasn't helped much. For example by first
> saying this....
>
> > "The main danger to the MOQ from subject-object
> > thinking at present seems to be when it tries in a
> > conventional way to encase values and declare them to
> > be either objects or thoughts. Lila's Child p503
>
> ...and then go on to defining Q-intellect as "thinking" and saying that
> the MOQ is just another intellectual pattern ...a THOUGHT which he
> calls the greatest danger to the MOQ.
R
Read it again Bo. He said that the greatest danger was trying to encase
VALUES and declare them to be either objects or thoughts. Saying the MoQ is
a thought doesn't contradict this because "the MoQ" isn't *synonymous* with
"Values". The MoQ (just like everything else) is a *species* of value.
It's a static, intellectual, pattern of value.
B
> We do the MOQ a great disservice by believing that RMP can fathom
> all ramifications of this fantastic "program" and treat his words like
> Muslim Imams do the Koran.
R
Agreed without qualification.
B
I'm sure he won't be very upset by us
> pointing to bugs and try to weed them out.
R
I would hope not considering he made his own name by pointing to and weeding
out the bugs in the philosophy of others.
take care
rick
The reality is more excellent than the report. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
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 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 06:21:30 BST