Hi all,
lawry
>Are dreams, as phenomena, in opposition to the MOQ concept of
> 'intellect'?
Elliot
It is definately important to incorporate all modes of experience into a
complete metaphysics. I've found that the MoQ does a very good job in most
respects. However, there are various aspects of the human experiece which
i cannot seem to fit. Carlos Castaneda speaks of eight different ways of
seeing(experiencing, comprehending, i dont know which is best) the world,
reason being only one of them. Dreams in these books are a perception (not
reaction to perception) of reality of equal validity and importance as
wakefulness, but i do not believe one would call them intellect. Also,
various ideas of enlightenemnt that i have heard (and make a good deal of
sense to me) entail the ceasing of thought for periods of time and
realizing the uselessness of language for discribing the world. How does
enlightenment that transcends both the intellect and socail levels (and
exerts forces on the biological level) fit into the MoQ? I postualte that
there are actually an infinite number of levels of static quality, and
intellect is only the one we stand at now. I think these things should be
discussed, if anyone would like to step away from Pirsig a little. I have
no answers, and it occurs to me that the nature of MoQ as a metaphysics may
limit talking about these things and arriving at soild answers.
Elliot
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST