Hi Jonathan and Squad,
Jonathan said:
> Let's drop the "intellect" word for a second. The 5 senses exclude
> imagination, inspiration and similar. That's the whole problem with SOM.
> It dismisses these attributes as "subjective" while happily capitalizing
> on their products.
Jonathan's post started a tangential train of thought for me on the nature
of the senses. Since I'm still reading "Lila" it may be that Pirsig
discusses this somewhere. If so, I apologize in advance for being
redundant!
As we've discussed many times, a S-O metaphysics discounts everything it
can't observe via the senses. But it's occurred to me that the senses are a
Biological Pattern of Value. They are incapable of observing anything at a
higher level of value in the context of that level. Imagination,
inspiration, the usual laundry list of esoterics is completely
unacknowledgeable to SOM because it stops short. The senses can observe
only manifestations of these things (I can see you smiling with my senses,
but I can't observe the thought that caused it. I can ask what you are
thinking about, but then I only hear what you say). The senses do a very
good job of interpreting biological and inorganic patterns, but are useless
for anything else.
Maybe we've only developed 5 senses - so far - because prior to the
development of the Intellectual level that's all that was needed. I wonder
if it would be possible for the biological level to develop a 6th sense for
us to use with the intellectual? Hmmm.
Mary
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST