Re: MD Lila's Child

Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 08:18:02 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD The Intellectual Level"

    Hello Platt.

    On 3 Aug. you said:

    > A 'mere' strategy? Remember Pirsig warned us to look twice at words
    > like 'just' as in, 'It's just in your mind'? I think your use of
    > 'mere' falls into that category. It's a casual dismissal of Pirsig's
    > point without evidence or argument. It seems a 'mere' prejudice on
    > your part.

    Well then "a strategy" .
    > To my mind, integrating the MOQ with science, especially the
    > conundrums of quantum mechanics, is important. Otherwise, the MOQ can
    > never gain acceptance since science dominants intellect at the present
    > time.

    You have always picked up relevant pieces in newspapers and
    magazine, in the July-August issue of "Scientific American" there is
    one - "Quantum Erasure" - which may have some philosophical
    ramifications ...approaching "idealism".

    > Idealism is not the subjective half of SOM. Idealism says it's all S.
    > SOM says it's both S and O, mind and matter. Materialism says it's all
    > O.

    Yes, but this is - um - merely another approach to the the same issue.
    The idealist says that all is mind, but "all" includes matter so he is
    caught in the S/O divide nevertheless is the materialist who can't
    do away with mind. They are both inside the SOM.

    > Yes, the MOQ subsumes SOM. It allows it but says it's not the best.

    Right, in Pirsig's well-known fashion, but if so how can it - after having
    been subsumed - still reside in intellect? To me it IS intellect you
    may know by now ;-)

    > The MOQ, being higher than either S and O or SO,

    Yes, it is higher, to the degree of being unable to "live with" the S/O
    ...why say that the S/O is the Q-intellect,.and the MOQ a rebel
    pattern. But to the mind-intellecters the SOM is one "thought" and the
    SOM another.

    > can adopt one or the
    > other or both, depending on its VALUE in a given experience.

    > If you see DQ as the creator of not only the Subject/Object pair but
    > also Idealism, Materialism, Scientology, Mysticism and everything
    > else, either singly or in combination, the problem disappears.

    As the intellectual level it has created the mind/matter,
    idealist/materialist, psychic/physical, culture/nurture ...and a host of
    other S/O-related dualities. Scientology I don't know, nor am I an
    expert on mysticism.

    Me prev.
    > > (idealism) also creates problems for the MOQ as presented in LILA
    > > where intellect is supposed to be a static level - out of the static
    > > social level - and in conflict with the parent level. But where is
    > > the static element in "thinking"?

    > The static element in thinking is grammar and/or logic.

    Correct, but is intellect's STATIC value grammar and/or logic? If so
    the stone age people were "intellectuals".

    > One can principally think and say everything at the intellectual
    > level.

    This has been my charge against a thought-intellect, it's principally
    limitless or dynamic.

    > But at the social level, one can only think and speak of what
    > is proper or socially acceptable. There's your conflict.

    You see the snag, thinking or speaking takes place at the social social
    level too. Thinking is an impossible definition of intellect (I see that
    Steve comments this so now its back to "social repetitive behavior"
    > The static levels are simultaneously intellectual patterns (not
    > quasi-) AND the base for intellect, like when pointing at the moon
    > there's simultaneously a finger AND a moon.

    You want to eat the cake and keep it ...simultaneously ;-)

    > Where Pirsig stumbles, if you're looking for opening, is where he
    >says Dynamic Quality is beyond ideas

    Is that the sentence ..."Except in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is
    observed always involves an interaction with ideas that have been
    previously assumed"?

    > when of course DQ is an idea itself.

    Of course from SOM's idealist premises.

    > But that's a paradox inherent in any metaphysics. We cannot use words
    > to describe ultimate reality because the words we use become part of
    > the reality we're trying to describe.

    A pre-intellect (social era) person would see this paradox? Not
    because he didn't "think" but because S/O-intellect hadn't descended
    upon him from where the SOM's idealist wing regards everything
    suspended in language (in our minds).

    > We're in the system we're trying
    > to see and so cannot see the whole system any more than an eye can see
    > itself.

    But you are somehow able to describe this so there is an eye that
    sees beyond (SOM).

    > But we can VALUE some descriptions (intellectual patterns)
    > over others and eventually come to a silent understanding of how the
    > world works.

    Right ...from the Quality point of view beyond SOM we can.

    > From previous correspondence, I know our understandings, beyond words,
    > is the same. :-)

    Agreement, but - again - words? Language emerged as the
    uppermost social pattern, the one that DQ used for escaping the
    social prison into intellect where it serves ITS purposes. It will surely
    follow the Q-evolution forever.

    In my opinion.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 08:24:12 BST