>From owner-moq_discuss@mill.venus.co.uk Thu Dec 24 17:23:00 1998
>Received: from [193.243.229.112] by hotmail.com (1.0) with SMTP id
MHotMail30920017743831835065324993253986672451510; Thu Dec 24 17:23:00
1998
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id BAA25843
> for moq_discuss-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 01:22:09 GMT
>Received: from mail.airmail.net (mail.airmail.net [206.66.12.40])
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA25839
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 01:22:06 GMT
>Received: from wittler from [207.136.19.132] by mail.airmail.net
> (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.377) with smtp for <moq_discuss@moq.org>
sender: <mwittler@geocities.com>
> id <mR/0ztLxO-0001bGR@mail.airmail.net>; Thu, 24 Dec 98 19:22:22 -0600
(CST)
>Message-ID: <00ad01be2fa5$cd665e60$691388cf@wittler.airmail.net>
>From: "Mary" <mwittler@geocities.com>
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL PATTERNS
>Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:27:56 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>
>Hi David & all,
>
Dear Mary and Squad,
>
>>David:
>>Glove and Bo have mostly been confusing me. Who is using a capitol 'Q'
>>in front of words? Cut it out! Use standard English! Talk like a
person,
>>will ya? :-)
>
>I'm very new myself, David. I've been a member for a year now, but
that
>doesn't mean I've been reading the posts! I dutifully filed them away
>meaning to catch up sometime, but well, once the number of posts passed
1000
>that began to look pretty hopeless. So here I am posting away
oblivious to
>the fact that somebody else probably already said everything I can
think of
>long ago, and said it much better! Oh well... And hey, Glove, please
don't
>jump on us newbies too hard, it sounds like maybe your social values
are
>devouring your intellectual level! ;-)
>
>I can help with the Q-Intellect and Q-Social stuff. Q-Intellect
represents
>IntPoVs and Q-Social stands for SocPoVs (I think!).
>
>>But I think you two were really on to something when your debate over
>>the two top levels focused on social patterns in animals and
>>proto-humans. It seems like there is a point when our ancestors became
>>human and that must be about when the intellectual patterns began to
>>emerge from social patterns. Before proto-humans became self conscious
>>there was not yet an intellectual level on earth. (As far as we know.)
>>Before early man became self-conscious, the social level must have
been
>>the highest level.
>
>
>As I said once in an earlier post, this Squad has been wrangling over
the
>definition of the levels since day one, and will probably continue to
do so
>well into the forseeable future! I tend to "side" with Bodvar, but in
the
>end I don't really think it matters a whole lot how one classifies
>particular behaviors. What matters to me is realizing that everything
>(every subject and every object and every subjective thing) is included
in
>the levels. The levels are just a framework for hanging value sets on.
I
>think as long as everyone is on the right wavelength about the fact
that the
>levels are sets of values, then where a particular thing fits in the
levels
>could be argued (and argued, and argued, and argued). Lay off Glove.
:-)
>
>> Who said snails have intellect? That's laughable.
>
>I would agree if what was meant by intellect was actually Q-Intellect.
No,
>snails don't have that, but as to whether they have some rudimentary
form of
>intelligence?
>
>>Bees and ants have social patterns, but mostly we think of the social
>>lives of wolves or chimps. They're highly evolved, intelligent mammals
>>who've been finely tuned in the last few million years, just like us.
We
>>can relate to their societies. We must have lived in societies just
like
>>them in our ancient past and vestages still remain.
>
>Bodvar pointed out a day or 2 ago that we have to be careful when
thinking
>about society because we are all completely steeped in the Western
culture
>which itself has been steeped in Q-Intellect. We have no experience of
>living in a pre Q-Intellect society.
>
>> Natural selection ignores value, is too mechanistic and explains too
>little.
>
>Yes, I think Darwinian evolution is basically correct, but also suffers
from
>the S/O soup we live in and needs to be enhanced. Darwinian evolution
is
>exemplified in the "dog eat dog world" cynicism so prevalent today.
It
>gave us a biological explanation, but omitted all the Quality aspects.
It's
>good "science" as far as it goes, but it has left us bereft of meaning.
>Remember how the "robber barons" of the turn of the century exploited
it?
>
>>Having said all that about evolution, now I'd ask you to think about
the
>>garden of Eden
>
>Toward the end of "Lila", Pirsig talks about tracing the emergence of
>"Quality" thinking back as far as the Indo-Europeans, who indeed did
seem to
>have a grasp of it (if he's right about the original meaning of the
word
>"rt"). Well, operating under the guidance of the biblical maxim to
"know
>thyne enemy as thyself", I've over the years read a lot about the
origins of
>Christianity. There has been some research done which seems to
indicate
>that Christ spent some time in India before he began his teaching
career.
>There are scholars today who think he might have actually picked up
most of
>his ideas in India - which is BTW, the place where the Indo-Europeans
(or
>aryans as they were known to the native Indians) built their
magnificent
>civilization on the banks of the Ganges. If memory serves, the
Indo-Euros
>had their own version of the golden rule, and a belief in this concept
of
>"rt". Both things that are liberally sprinkled throughout the New
>Testament. Maybe someone can help me out with this. I need to re-read
a
>few things, so don't take this as cast in stone!
>
>>One more thought to tease - I think that subject object thinking
>>dominates Western civilization because of the forces of value, but
its'
>>time is limited and its' task is almost complete. The intellectual
level
>>may soon be radically transformed. There may even be a new level about
>>to emerge from the intellectual level. Anyone care to speculate?
>
>
>I think the clock started ticking faster when the atomic bomb was
invented,
>so I hope you're right!
>
>>... I can
>>produce evidence that the author himself and at least one professional
>>academic philosopher believes the MOQ is mystical. I believe that to
>>think otherwise makes it nearly impossible to discuss Pirsig's work in
>>any meaningful way and only demonstates a misunderstanding of myticism
>>or the MOQ or both. I know that's a harsh statement, but I'm very
>>worried about the quality of our debate.
>
>
>Believe it or not, I agree with you. But at the same time, I will
fight
>tooth and nail when Dynamic Quality is equated with god, or Zen, or
most
>particularly with a New Age "awareness". These terms have been
>misappropriated to support so many things that are not dynamic and
certainly
>not of high quality, that I really must shy away from them.
I agree completely Mary!
Remember, we
>already have an "Aryan Nation Cosmotheist" who said in this forum just
the
>other day that it was inspired by Pirsig's ideas!
Really!!!!????
Mary, you are a liar, and you are just so ignorant, and so bigoted, that
you really just do not know the difference! I am a Cosmotheist.
For your information, Mary, Cosmotheistic ideas predate Pirsigīs MOQ by
several centuries! You did not check the encyclopedias, nor ask Dr.
Pierce himself, did you?
Thanks but no thanks.
You do not even know what you are talking about, do you Mary?
I
>would hate to see Pirsig's work twisted around to suit every racist or
>Christian Fundamentalist group looking for a tag line.
How is Pirsigīs MOQ, twisted around, to suit or fill any tag line,
Christian Fundamentalist, or otherwise?
Either the MOQ is a better model of Reality, than SO metaphysics, or it
isnīt. Mary, other groups have twisted Reality using a Bible or Torah,
to justify various evil acts, and such groups have had, consequently,
less a grasp on Reality, than the MOQ can offer the World.
If you knew a little more about Cosmotheism, Mary, you would see that it
transcends Race, and also, that Pirsigīs MOQ fits in perfectly with
Cosmotheismīs complete view of the world, and our place, within it.
We need to be
>careful not to encourage them.
I agree. There is enough mis-direction and mis-information and lying
going on in these so-called New Age and Religious Cults, that are just
springing up, all over, at this close of this century. However, that is
hardly where the source of most of this lying has been, eh Mary?
To me, DQ is a very personal notion, and
>very new. I like to think I have enough respect for it to not define
it in
>ordinary terms.
Nonsense! You have done just that! Mary, because you are ignorant of
what Cosmotheism is, you donīt realize that DQ, is at the very heart of
Cosmotheism, and is a very personal notion!
>[end of sermon] ;-)
Thank goodness! When you are ready to be serious, drop me a line!
Best regards,
A slandered Cosmotheist!
>Paul.
PS. Nice sneak slam attack Mary!
>Best wishes to all on this Christmas Eve,
>Mary
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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 - 16:02:49 BST