From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Jun 11 2005 - 07:58:50 BST
Dear Bo,
You
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:28 PM
> Subject-subject thinking (primitive consciousness). You see that
> as social level "thinking" ...
No, as a relatively low quality part of the 4th level.
> > Another
> > elements of the intellectual level may be spiritual and/or aesthetic
> > consciousness. I agree that 'consciousness' is too ambiguous. It
> > doesn't sound right to write 'spiritual thinking' and 'aesthetic
> > thinking', however. Do you have an alternative term to connect with
> > spirituality and aesthetics?
>
> "Spiritual" is definitely an element of the intellectual level in the
> sense that SPIRITUAL/MATERIAL is another S/O.
>
> If I understand you correctly you mean that the MOQ must save
> the spiritual and/or aesthetics elements of existence and THAT I
> agree with but not by relegating it to intellect. It is as static as
> static comes.
The spiritual/material distinction may be a static pattern of value (but a
4th level one, if it is comparable to the S/O-distinction!). I'm not so sure
about the experience that is referred to as 'spiritual', though. I tend to
view it as experience on the upper side of the dominant level (4th level for
those people who identify mainly with 4th level patterns of value, 3rd level
for those people who identify mainly with 3rd level patterns of value) that
'points' for them to that which is just out of reach for them: DQ.
> > What then defines the 3rd level according to you?
>
> No level is defined for the reason that Pirsig saw them as self-
> evident. The inorganic & biological levels still seems so, but
> even if the word "society" is known from before, it doesn't quite
> carry the MOQ content of a reality plane in the same class as the
> physical and biological ones. And when it comes to intellect our
> instinctive definition (of it being the mental realm) shows that no
> MOQ level really corresponds to their somish counterparts.
>
> I have come to define the intellectual level as the value of the
> S/O distinction, but turning to the social level I really don't know
> how to formulate it: "The value of communities"? It sounds a bit
> bland compared to the many qualities we see manifested there,
> but maybe it fits. F.ex. Churches as social patterns and their
> "communion" sacrament. At some more fundamental plane I see
> emotions as the social "expression", but that's another thing.
>
> Aesthetics or (sense of) Beauty or Art. Don't we agree that it is
> identical to (sense of) Value? In other words DQ that doesn't
> belong anywhere, but is always up ahead of the (at any time)
> uppermost level. Pirsig speaks of an art code above intellect.
Pirsig DID define at least the 2nd and 4th levels in Lila's Child.
If you define some levels and not the others, you make those others into a
waste bin that doesn't add to our comprehension of reality/experience.
What about my definition of the 3rd level as 'habitual', i.e. containing
individual and collective habits understood as static patterns of behaviour
not hard-wired in DNA?
Like 'spiritual', 'beauty' and 'art' 'point to' DQ, yes. As soon as we
distinguish and name/code and try to understand it, it is for me part of the
4th level as I understand it, however. As soon as we distinguish
spirituality/aesthetics/'sense of value' it can't be identical with
(undefined and undefinable) DQ anymore.
Wasn't (sense of) Value supposed to be identical with (sense of) Quality,
which is identical with the (contradictory identity) of sq and DQ, rather
than only with DQ?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 11 2005 - 08:10:53 BST