From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 13:38:57 BST
Hi Squonk,
> squonk: Western world view is dominated by social patterns of value.
> Subjects and Objects in the social level of values is largely a value of
> beating the opposition. Thus, subjects and objects are not intellectual
> in their origin.
I think you're on to something. One of the first divisions we can infer
from the survival needs of early man is friend/enemy, a social level
value. It isn't too much of a jump from that to me/you, subject/object,
mind/matter. (Enemies are often treated as inhuman, like dirt.) But, I
think you limit your insight too much by attributing it solely to the
Western worldview. Eastern methods of torture are diabolic.
> squonk: Subjects and objects are manifold in their patterns and are
> static. They are artistic creations of the intellect. We don't need
> them, and science doesn't want them. They are a genetic fault.
We agree on a lot, Squonk. But here I must question your "artistic
creations of intellect" that you repeat in the following passage:
> squonk: There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ. There are no
> subjects and objects as such in quantum mechanics. Many readers of Lila
> have never valued the definition of intellect described here as
> Q-intellect. Intellect produces many wonderful artistic creations, and
> one has been subjects and objects - which have social and biological
> roots. Intellect has created a myth of a supersensible reality called
> truth, which science values, but such a myth involves no subjects or
> objects.
Again you claim that intellect produces "many wonderful artistic
creations," granting to intellect creative powers that Pirsig reserves
for Dynamic Quality, "the life force." Intellect is mostly hidebound in
static patterns. Its "repertoire" of meaningful patterns, while
numerous, is necessarily common or we wouldn't be able to understand
one another. There's a certain amount of inventiveness involved in
speaking extemporaneously as we combine word patterns on the fly in
ordinary conversation. But I wouldn't go so far as to call everyday
talking or thinking "artistic." Rarely do we speak or write in ways one
would compare to a Shakespearean sonnet.
So, artistic creation doesn't come from intellect but from that sense
within each of us that responds to the creative force of DQ. It's known
to the us as a sudden flash of insight, the light bulb going off, the
surprising connection we make between two or three heretofore unrelated
patterns.
That the DQ sense is more highly developed in some than in others is
only too evident. I can count on one hand the truly great creative
geniuses in any field. But, the sense is inborn in everyone. Children
exhibit it almost every day up until about the third or fourth grade
when they begin to get smothered with static intellectual patterns we
insist they learn in order to become good socialized tax-paying
citizens. We should be teaching them, instead, to be attuned to DQ and
to grab it whenever it appears. We should be teaching them aesthetics.
That I'm sure you'll agree with. :-)
Platt
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 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 13:37:42 BST