From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 - 07:26:59 GMT
Hi Platt (Scott mentioned)
A bit late but ...24 Nov.you wrote to Ian
> You asked Bo:
> > We've already known for ages that you don't see "rationality" being
> > greater than SOMism, so do you have any conception of or any kind of
> > word for mental / intellectual considerations beyond SOM ?
... and cited Ken Wilber:
> "That vast infinite witnessing awareness, don't you recognize it? What
> is that Witness?
> "You are that Witness, aren't you? You are the pure Seer, pure
> awareness, the pure Spirit that impartially witnesses everything that
> arises, moment to moment. Your awareness is spacious, wide open, empty
> and clear, and yet it registers every thing that arises."
> "That very Witness is Spirit within, looking out on a world that it
> created. It sees but cannot be seen, it hears but cannot be heard; it
> knows but cannot be known. It is Spirit itself that sees with your
> eyes, speaks with your lips, hears with your ears, reaches out with
> your arms. Will you confess this simple secret and awaken from the
> gruesome nightmare?"
> So Ian, the word you may be looking for, and what Bo may be referring
> to, is the "Witness."
I don't know if you read the following posts, but I had not seen
your input before answering Ian so I merely said that Quality is
beyond SOM which is correct enough but a bit glib. To Mike (who
took up your idea) I said that it is one of the many ways the 4th
level likes to see itself.
To you I will add: Because the DQ/SQ configuration is perfect
there will always be some dynamic rest at all levels that its static
value can't account for. What Wilber calls witness is IMO
intellect's "nemesis", something it's static value can't explain.
Whatever subtleties the 4th level suggests there is always a still
higher perspective ..into infinity.
It may sound inconsistent that I first said that the "witness" is one
of intellect's many adornments, as if denouncing it (the witness),
but what I denounce is intellect that usurpes the "witness" as own
static value, while it really is the dynamic something that escapes
its static repertoire.
I don't know if you have been involved with Scott, but he claims
that "intellect" is identical to DQ and in this sense he's right. All
efforts to catch the 4th level's dynamic aspect is doomed and
why I claim that the 4th level better be relegated its obvious static
value - the S/ Oone - while its dynamism is seen as what gave
rise to the MOQ beyond the static hierarchy.
Regrettable my effort looks like sabotage to the "intellectuals"
who believe that the static intellectual level can be given a
definition wide enough to "contain" its dynamic aspect - a futile
effort because the MOQ itself can never be contained inside a
static part of its own make.
Enough
Bo
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 : Wed Nov 30 2005 - 13:29:49 GMT