Re: MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality (reformatted)

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Nov 14 2005 - 08:07:11 GMT

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD Skutvik lies."

    Hi Paul, good to see you back.

    First of all I appreciated the input about the various Qualities (in
    your first post) something that goes against the notion of a
    QUALITY of which DQ/SQ is a subset, this runs counter to your
    earlier view so I hail your honesty.

    12 Nov. you wrote:

    > I agree with the recent suggestion by Rebecca Temmer that rationality
    > is a good definition of the intellectual level. Predictably, I
    > disagree with Bodvar that rationality and SOM are identical or even
    > inextricable. I have long argued that there exists an 'eastern
    > rationality' which is not dependent on the assumptions of a SOM and
    > moreover I believe Pirsig considers the MOQ itself to be rational, or
    > more accurately, in his words - an expansion of rationality itself. I
    > offer the quotes below in support of my assertion.

    No-one contest an "eastern rationality", however "not dependent
    on SOM" is plain impossible, I mean rationality can be enlarged
    but it has to rational first. In moqish: The intellectual level - or
    SOM - had to be reached before the MOQ could lodge on top of
    it (see PS). IMO there was an Oriental S/O-development, but it
    didn't evolve into a SOM thus delaying the next step as it did in
    the West. The Eastern culture went on, but because of its "weak"
    intellect their Buddhism/Taoism looks like some mystic religion to
    us, while it really is an enlarged rationality.

    The strong Western intellect - SOM - was an hinderance but also
    a blessing, it brought modernity to the West while a most strict
    social system remained in the East. When the next step finally
    emerged with Pirsig, it had to break an enormously strong S/O
    barrier and to do so the MOQ had to be rational enough to satisfy
    science, something it only mnages by the SOL interpretation.

    Bo

    PS
    In your absence we have made great strides. I refer to Mike
    Hamilton and myself performing the trick of "eating the cake and
    keeping it", namely keeping the framework of the MOQ as an
    intellectual pattern while simultaneously creating the Q-reality
    which "contains" intellect as a static level.

    PPS
    Your two theses I haven't yet studied yet, but it is promising that
    you see the "idealist" annotations in LC needing some
    adjustments.

    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 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 08:13:23 GMT