RE: MD Intellectually Nowhere

Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 09:19:35 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD Lila's Child"

    David B. Rick B. and All

    On 3 Aug. David responded to Rick's:

    > > I think Bo makes a great point DMB. You have made yourself a defacto
    > > defender of the SOLAQI by declaring that LILA doesn't participate in
    > > intellectual patterns because she is not "an intellectual". Please
    > > clarify your position in regards to Bo's comments.
    > Because she's not an intellectual? I hope you're only mocking me and
    > don't really think that's my position. (Please see the "does she or
    > not?" post I sent earlier today.) ... I'd like to clarify things with
    > regard to Bodvar's comments, but there is a little problem. I've been
    > openly scoffing at the "manipulation of symbols" thing, the "socially
    > repetative behaviour" thing comes from Wim, I think, and I've openly
    > criticized that too. The bit about math, while I have some sympathy
    > with it, is not mine either. I think Bo has me confused with at least
    > three other people. On top of all that, I honestly can't make any
    > sense of what Bo's saying.

    Our wrestlings over the (definition of the) intellectual level has gone on
    more or less continuously since this discussion started 6-7 years ago
    and has turned into a struggle for the soul of the MOQ. A little tongue
    in cheeck it may be compared to what the teachings of Jesus went
    through after his departure. If it was J's variety that emerged as
    "Christianity" I don't know, neither do I know who is who in this game
    or what will emerge as the true Quality interpretation.

    Rick's accusation that David is a defender of the SOL through his
    opinion about Lila Blewitt is valid, but David professes not to
    understand what the SOL is about and makes Lila B's intellectual
    capacity a minor point, but by saying:

    > I've been openly scoffing at the "manipulation of symbols" thing, .

    he must necessarily have some other definition of intellect in mind.
    OK I shan't taunt David he has made a great job saving the social
    reality from the "social repetitive mob" (;-) but turn to the thinking term
    (which is a variety of "manipulation of symbols") instead. Sam Norton
    (where art thou Sam?) had dug out a Wittgenstein quote on that
    issue. I am unable to find it (June sometime) but I remember that
    David agreed with it.

    If my memory serves me Wittgenstein maintains that thinking is
    language internalized, but "internalized" does it make any difference,
    isn't language already internal "manipulations of symbols"? It truly is.
    Words are abstract symbols manipulated by the rules of grammar and
    syntax, yet, the question is not if language-as-thinking is
    manipulation of symbols, rather if manipulation of symbols is the
    (value of the) intellectual level?

    Now, from where do we ask these questions? From intellect naturally,
    it's the top perch from where existence looks down on creation and if
    you (all) for a moment will adopt the intellect-as-S/O view, see how it
    works: Intellect is the internal/external-abstract/concrete divide and
    thereby forces the notion of abstract symbols as different from an
    external (real) world upon us, BUT it does not want to be regarded as
    the DIVIDE, it wants to be regarded solely as hinking ...for a very
    special reason.

    Namely the "mechanism" that Pirsig touches on in LILA that all levels
    resist an outgrowths from themselves even if is a Quality growth, they
    only see corruption of own value: A biological organism just wants to
    live not to give its life for the good of the group. Society doesn't like
    anyone questioning their pillars be it religious faith or national
    interests, and now Intellect panics to see one of the its "ideas"
    degrading it from the noble position of thinking which enables it to
    contain all existence. And you all seem only too eager to serve
    intellect's interest.

    To make Platt an example (not harmful ;). He says that Pirsig makes a
    mistake in excepting DQ from the idea-as-intellectual pattern (thanks
    Platt for at least admitting that Pirsig does. Rick wake up!). By
    insisting that any theory - regardless its "size" - is just another idea
    nothing can escape intellect. If that principle falls (intellect says) we
    are heading straight for the Stone Age when people believed that
    thoughts were gods speaking to them and thus as real as anything
    else - blurring the S/O distinction This must not happen! Any
    definition of intellect other than mind or thoughts is a danger to the
    "harmless" MOQ that may simmer inside Q-intellect as an "intellectual
    pattern" for ever and ever ..with some squonkish NewAge ingredients
    added for flavour.

    I would have liked to comment on the "insanity" part of Rick's post,
    but this is insane enough.


    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 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 09:20:54 BST