Hi Bo, Scott, all,
I'm just tiding up so loose ends by getting back to this post. So I will
cut out our agreements and get to my questions:
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
Bo:
> Isn't the power of a new view to combine two conflicting ideas, show that
> they are two perspectives of the same thing? S/O as a metaphysics
(reality
> itself) is oblivious to itself being "biased", while the S/O as a Q-level
is aware
> of this limitation. Hope I got your objection right?
>
GARY'S RESPONSE: Not sure what you mean by "S/O as a metaphysics (reality
itself)"? Though I agree that human's with their mind / Q-Intellect can be
aware of limitations and act and think accordingly.
BO: > Yes, yes and yes again Gary, it's what I believe too. The great
question is
> however if the S/O (O'er/O'ed as a valuable yet limited perspective) can
be
> maintained without it destroying the motivation ....of science for
instance. I
> am right now reading a special issue of Scientific American on "Mind" and
> read a lot of somish qualifications behind the lines, yet it is terribly
interesting
> to learn what brain segments are involved with what "mind" experiences.
GARY'S RESPONSE: Yes, we can accept the limitation of the O'er/O'ed divide,
the old internal/external divide, and the map/territory divide and still
work toward understanding! We agree.
>
> > [Bo:]... but the static value of the subject/object divide is
> > > of enormous importance. It has given us the modern world and we
> > > would be bad off forfeiting that by declaring it a "bad intellectual
> > > idea" replaced by the better MOQ. S/O is Intellect - lock stock ..etc
while the Quality
> > > is an idea not at home with Intellect.
GARY'S RESPONSE: I think we do agree, just checking. The substance vs.
non-substance , the old how does a mind interact with a body question is
solved and dissolved by MOQ. This we can dump "bad intellectual idea" .
but the O'er/Oed divide remains and we can work with this. Your SOLAQI is
somehow related to this work around.
>
> I am fully aware of the Eastern tradition as non-somish and thus counter
to
> the SOL interpretation, still as I read the RT chapter of LILA it seems as
the
> if Pirsig thinks that the Hindis (he mostly speak about them not the
> Buddhists) have solved the dynamic/static problem, yet have no static
> LEVELS in their makeup. In moq-speak it means that in their tradition
> (much older than the Western) they already HAVE passed the intellectual
> stage ... knowingly or not.
GARY'S RESPONSE: Not sure what you mean by "Intellectual stage"? But, when
you check out the Hindu philosophers they do recognize a map of reality
similar to Pirsig's 4 levels. They see consciousness as working its way up
through matter, through mind, back up to pure Quality. Similar themes as
Pirsig but a different cultural take. They don't have the mind/body
substance problem.
>
> >BO Yes, I do think Q-intellect is equivalent of the S/O divide and also
that
> removing it indeed "end" the world as we know it. Here we differ
> fundamentally.
GARY'S RESPONSE: It would help if you had written out an essay on your
ideas. Then you could post or sent it to me to read. Anyway, I don't get
the "indeed end the world as we know it" statement. Not clear on your
concept. Give me some words!!! I need gory details! I'm reading addict!
Feed my addiction!
>
> > Gary: But to eliminate S-O divide is NOT to eliminate Observer/Observed
> > divide. That one remains as inherent in the nature of Reality and thus
> > has to be considered by MOQ.
>
>BO: Arrrgh, why must you destroy all the good reasoning you have done up
to
> now? (grin) The very notion of a "nature of reality" independent of what
> people thinks about it IS THE VERY Q-INTELLECT! And yes it has to be
> considered by the MOQ, that is done by my SOLAQI that says that the
> MOQ is something not at home with Intellect yet "from" Intellect ... like
all
> levels are from their parent and incorporate the parents values as a
(minor)
> part of its own system.
>
> Remember Maggie Hettinger pointing out "...mind is from society"? which is
> MOQ's perspective, but so many haven't manage to switch to that that, but
> spoke about mind as a mysterious realm of thinking ...which is S/O-
> intellect's perspective.
GARY'S RESPONSE: To me Q-Intellect is the level of activity of the mind as
well as the content of that activity. Once me make public our ideas they
can become, if accepted by others, part of the Social level. Mind is from
society as Maggie said but I take her to mean that not all of the mind is
from society. Just the stuff that we have socialized is from Society. Our
cultural heritage, the very language we use, all those automatic ideas and
patterns , this stuff comes form Social. New thoughts and new ideas, and
other personal individual thinking is all Q-intellect stuff. The MOQ is
made by Pirsig's q-intellect. Each and every idea are person has/had is an
event in their own personal q-intellect and thus "at home". Q-intellect is
not some special restrictive thinking. It is the only place for all
thinking done by a human in Pirsig's map. You seem to want to make
Q-Intellect into levels or stages or something. Scott does too , he and his
Hindu friends have "monkey mind"/non-reflective thinking as a new level or a
internal level in Q-Intellect. Making new levels or gradating the
Q-intellect is fine by me, just designate that your doing the "Reform
Judaism thing" and thus you have left "Orthodox Pirsig". This is okay. I
too am a Reform Jew and a Reform Pirsigist. I just think you should map out
your idea of q-intellect and labeling what is neo-Pirsig/ Bo from what is
Pirsig.
> > Back to your post where once we leave the S-O divide and focus on
> > O'er/O'ed divide we are in agreement....
>
GARY: We agree.
>
> I believe that language has a (grammatical) 1st. person, yet this did not
> indicate any Observer/Observed metaphysical divide. To the cave-dwellers
> who used language reality was something that they were able to influence,
> hence no S/O absolute. No cave "skeptics" :-)
GARY: Barfield, who Scott recommended(?), is great, though slow read. Yes
no cave "skeptics", Jaynes and Barfield tells us that "skeptics" come later
on.
>
> > There would be no divide if we had 3rd person Omniscience and
> > thus no separation O'er and O'ed. From the perspective of Quality or
> > Divinity, the Observer is the thing doing the Observation! It is an
> > act of introspection! It is not an act of examination, which is what
> > it is for us mere 1st person limited humans.
>
> I believe that also the third person was part of language's make-up
without it
> causing ideas about an objective reality. When SOM emerged with the
> Greeks (as described in ZAMM) language merely reflected the development.
>
GARY: I think your saying we agree. We are stuck in 1st person, although
our language if we are not paying attention easily falls into the mistake of
pretending to be 3rd person omniscient. SOM came out of Greeks and the
breakdown of the bicameral mind.
That's all for now,
Gary
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 - 16:02:29 BST