Hi Bo, Scott and all,
BO
> I think that your wish to abolish Intellect somehow springs from the same
> source as my wish to cut it down to size, because the current model is
> untenable, it leads - as you imply - to the conclusion that everything is
> intellectual or nothing is.
Bo, I think we are on the same wavelength - nobody else seems to understand
what I don't like about the intellectual LEVEL. I don't deny the existence
of Intellect per se, but I find enormous difficulties in giving it its own
level.
> I am worn out by my effort to bring this argument to
> dawn on the discussers who go on in their hopeless effort to align SOM's
Mind
> with MOQ's Intellect. A disappointment is that you (after this
realization) don't
> see the virtue of my SOLAQI interpretation, but I guess it's become a
principle
> not to agree with old Bodvar ... I would probably faint if it happened
:-)
>
But Bo, I do see the virtue of SOLAQI. I think SOL is a very large part of
intellect. SOL, as the main component of rational thought is clearly the
major player in the construction and analysis of the MoQ. However, I think
that there is more to reason than that. I've often said that one can follow
a logical/dialectical thought process all the way to absurdity.
However, we have an inherent ability to look at the product of logic and say
"that just isn't reasonable" (which is why people are good at picking up
massive computer errors!!!).
SCOTT
>I have occasionally remarked that one could get
>something very like the MOQ by substituting Reason for Quality, much
>in the sense that you are using here:
Up to a point, yes. Reason is more than just logic, but I think it is less
than the Quality Pirsig talks about.
My own preferred substitution is "meaning". Meaning has a direct, rational
aspect (the meanings one learns in school), but also an aesthetic aspect, as
in the meaning of a work of art, or a meaningful experience.
>From my first ever post to the Lila Squad:
"Does Lila have meaning?" . . .
Of course she does! She means something to Phaedrus, and she means something
to Rigel too.
By taking Rigel's question and substituted meaning for quality, there's no
need for all the messy analytical contortions Phaedrus goes through to
answer the question.
Now, to get back to the issue of intellect: What happens to intellect when
one is a state of "nirvana".
Nirvana certainly abolishes the SO divide and thus Bo's SOLAQI version of
intellect. I think that Nirvana abolishes all metaphysical distinctions
including the MoQ levels themselves. Either we have to conclude that Nirvana
is an empty meaningless concept, or that meaning is limitless, like quality
itself, and Nirvana, Reason and Intellect are all different reflections.
Jonathan
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 - 16:02:26 BST