On 22 Apr 00, at 18:05, David Buchanan wrote:
(at the end of his message)
> And finally a thought about thoughts... If each level of static quality is
> more free and more dynamic that the previous ones, then freedom is the aim
> in cultivating the intellect. A person with a highly developed and an open,
> creative mind is the free-est kind of person, no? To free your mind requires
> discipline and order, yes? I don't mean the kind of freedom that comes from
> the mystical experience, that's DQ and I'm talking about the world of static
> patterns.
Only a comment here. If you equalize the intellectual level with
"mind" you get some very strange results, See my reply to Rick.
> Which raises a question, I think. Do the Indians have an intellectual level
> that's anything like the European's? The individuality exhibited by the
> Indians seems to show that they're more than purely social creatures, but
> where od they get it? If their intellectual level is less developed than the
> metal civilizations, then how'd they get to be so free? I think that their
> mystical tradition explains it, but would be interested to hear otherwise.
Now, this is a very intriguing point. The formulation ...have an
intellectual level that's anything like the Europeans'...puzzles me.
Can there be a different intellectual level, or one containing
different patterns? Is it the "vessel where different ideas reside"
intellect that haunts us?
Let's see. Can there be another inorganic level? Negative matter
that annihilate our positive kind? It's matter all the same. Life other
than the carbon-based of earth? Possibly but it's life nevertheless.
A different kind of social level? Countless ways of organizing co-
operation, but the value of commonalty is inviolable.
I see no other intellect than the freedom-from-society kind, and that
is not freedom to ride into the sunset. It is the capability of looking
objectively upon existence - something that means dividing what's
subjective from what's objective. No other definition of Q-intellect is
possible in my opinion.
Q-intellect did not start with any "ability to think" or "democracy". If
what the last part of ZAMM speaks about is the emergence of Q-
intellect (as subject-object logic) he says:
"But now, as a result of the growing impartiality of the Greeks
to the world around them, there was an increasing power of
abstraction which permitted them to regard the old mythos (the
gods) not as revealed truth but as imaginative creations of art".
>From this simple power of distinguishing what's subjective
(imagination) and what's objective did the whole Western
civilization - as we know it - grow. But were there such "free-
thinkers" among the American Indians (or the African Bushmen or
Australian Aboriginals) at that time? I doubt it. Not then not now in
their "reservations". Don't misunderstand me. The said people are
just as intelligent as anyone else, but their SOCIETY was - and is -
not capable of sustaining Q-intellect.
We have this constant tendency to lapse into SOM-logic where
intellect is "thinking", but Q-intellect is out of society - not out of
brain.
> P.S. Congratulate me, I'm a dad! Max James was born on 4/11/00. He's got all
> the right parts and everything.
Wow! Lots of congratulations. Nothing beats biology!!!
Bo
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST