Re: MD Dealing with S/O

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 19:05:41 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Dealing with S/O"

    Hi Bo

    Thanks for below. I would say the activity of mind
    is DQ but memory and all its workings in terms
    of re-cognition and perception is SQ. So SQ/DQ have
    to work together in what we call mind.

    Regards
    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <skutvik@online.no>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:05 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O

    > Dan, Mark, David M. and All.
    > 22 Sep. you wrote:
    >
    > > Bodvar: All value patterns started their "career" in the service
    ofrelevance
    > > the parent level, but gradually they took off on their own and became
    > > a new value dimension. (page 37, LILA'S CHILD)
    >
    > Good to have an input from you Dan, but I'm not sure what relevance
    > my above has for David M's question below?
    >
    > > >Can someone post up the bit in Lila's Child
    > > >that puts mind on the fourth level please.
    >
    > and for the Pirsig quotation below ...?
    >
    > > Pirsig annotation #25: This is OK. In LILA, I never defined the
    > > intellectual level of the MOQ, since anyone who is up to reading LILA
    > > already knows what "intellectual" means. For purposes of MOQ
    > > precision, let's say the intellectual level is the same as mind. It is
    > > the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that
    > > stands for patterns of experience. (page 60, LC)
    >
    > Dan, I have a post under preparation that hopefully will reconcile all
    > definitions of Q-intellect. Look out for it.
    >
    > Mark wrote (the 22th):
    >
    > > I don't think Pirsig wishes to have to say this, but his audience wants
    to know what mind is, and so he speaks
    > > in a general way: 'let (us) say...'
    >
    > I like this Mark, I've always tried to explain it in a similar way:
    Pirsig
    > was forced to deliver a definition and "mind" came closest to Q-
    > intellect (I call)
    >
    > > 'Intellect is simply thinking' Lila's Child
    >
    > > PIRSIG in a letter to Ant McWatt Jan 2nd 1998:
    >
    > > "To prevent confusion, the MOQ treats 'mind' as the
    > > exact equivalent of 'static intellectual patterns' and
    > > avoids use of the term when possible."
    >
    > > Static intellectual patterns are the fourth level in the MoQ and mind is
    a term that is to be avoided. If
    > > people have an ingrained concept of mind, (which is a useless concept if
    the process of thinking is not
    > > involved), then it can be difficult shift without a degree of
    resistance? As static intellectual patterns
    > > respond to DQ, thinking is a Dynamic, and hopefully evolving process.
    Sorry for the confusion, Mark
    >
    > You are right, "mind" is ingrained because it's part and parcel of the
    > mind/matter dichotomy which descends directly from the S/O divide.
    > The term can't be avoided, but must (as part of the S/O) find its place
    > within the MOQ and I still think the whole intellectual level is its
    proper
    > place. The MOQ is a development "out of intellect", it is born there (in
    > the same way that Q-intellect was born from Q-society) but is a
    > stranger at home.
    >
    > David M (today. Below becomes above here):
    >
    > > Hey thanks for below:
    > > I don't believe the below, it says that the intellectual
    > > can be seen as an aspect of mind not that mind is an
    > > aspect of the intellectual level, some of the arguments
    > > I seem to have read seem to have inverted this quote.
    >
    > Hmm. Perhaps you have an important point here. Intellect an aspect
    > of mind?! But as Q-intellect is a static aspect of DQ, it means that
    > MIND = DQ and THAT one I buy!
    >
    > > However, the quote does seems to imply SOM dualism
    > > with 'stands for' -a possible mistake, but we all slip into SOM
    > > here and there. Whatever we experience, whichever organs
    > > are involved (eg brain), whatever theories we might suggest about
    > > objetcs, it is all just one unified experience.
    >
    > S/O is inevitable but S/O Metaphysics can be discarded in ...IS
    > discarded once one accepts the MOQ as a matter of fact!
    >
    > Sincerely.
    > Bo
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Wed Sep 24 2003 - 19:06:26 BST