On Tuesday 23 October 2007 9:27:18 AM Bo writes to DM
Hi Bo, DM, and all,
[snip]
Forgive me but it all hinges on understanding the MOQ (the
SOLinterpretation) None of these persons knew any levels, their
ideas were confined to SOM (without knowing any SOM) Some
saw faults with it, but this lead nowhere except to "all is mind" or
"all is matter". OK, I know you will protest, that some saw deeper
realities beyond/below the S/O, but without the Dynamic/Static
split of these deeper realitiesl it was still-born.
As said, it's a tendency to see all thinking and/or ideas as
"intellectual patterns", for instance that the Babylonians plans for building
their Hanging Gardens were the workings of intellect, but
because this era was before the intellectual level it's clearly
wrong. Pirsig finally saw this fallacy (the Paul Turner letter) but
his "revision" was so vague and half-hearted that it hardly made it
any better. He was a hair's breadth from affirming the SOL, but
then backed away with the "Oriental intellect".
Bo
[Joe]
As I read through your conclusion I require a further clarification for myself
of the Dynamic/Static split. For evolution a law of three is required for a
knowledge of the manifestation, namely, the level, what the individual is, what
the individual is not. Since there is no known level of the Dynamic, it is
unmanifest. In one way then in terms of knowledge the Dynamic/Static split can
be configured as an Unmanifest/Manifest split. In this case the order of
evolution is unmanifest while the presence of an individual within the order is
manifest. How does this explanation specifically describe the Intellectual
level since it also applies to the other levels of evolution?
Why single out the intellectual level?
Joe
Hi David M.
On 22 Oct. you wrote (answering my question about examples of
non-S/O "patterns")
> DM: Renaissance symbolism, Blake's criticisms of science,
> Jung's unconscious, Newton's investigation of the animistic properties
> of chemicals, alchemy, Whitehead's process theory, Coleridge's id eas
> on Imagination, anyone with pantheistic leanings, Thomas Carlyle's
> Sartor Resartus, David Bohm's Implicate Order, Sheldrake's morphic
> resonance, Bergson, existentialism, Schopenhauer's will, I'd suggest
> none of these sit comfortably within an SOM framework.
Pirsig (also) rejected the SOL interpretation and gave examples
of non-S/O patterns ("Lila's Child" annotation #129)
I've always thought this is incorrect because many forms
of intellect do not have a subject/object construction.
These include logic itself, mathematics, computer
programming languages and I believe some primitive
languages (although i can't remember what they are)
This is the same non-understanding of what intellect is. As
pointed out in ZAMM, SOM is the value of searching for what's
objectively true (regarding the old social patterns as subjective
and the 4th. level meets this criterion again and again.
"Logic itself" is not intellect, but intelligence. Stone-age mankind
applied logic. Their logical conclusion was that all existence was
divine.
"Mathematics". Social level people were capable of calculation
but only with the Greeks did it become mathematics. It's a fact
that the Egyptians and Babylonians knew the relationship
between the hypotenuse and legs in a triangle and that
Pythagoras learned it there, but only his theorem - the objective
proof of why this works - is intellect.
"Computer programming" is languages and language - primitive
or otherwise - is something that the social level had. The
intellectual part is when language became (subjective) symbols
different from the (objective) reality it is about. A distinction that
the social level didn't know, to them it was a means of evoking
the forces, still is in religious prayer.
>From this you will understand that I see our examples of non-S/O
intellectual patterns stem from the same non-understanding of
what MOQ's intellect means.
> Renaissance symbolism,
Haven't got a clue what that is.
> Blake's criticisms of science,
Social value's hatred of intellect's objectivism.
> Jung's unconscious,
Was Jung unconscious? ;-)
Forgive me but it all hinges on understanding the MOQ (the
SOLinterpretation) None of these persons knew any levels, their
ideas were confined to SOM (without knowing any SOM) Some
saw faults with it, but this lead nowhere except to "all is mind" or
"all is matter". OK, I know you will protest, that some saw deeper
realities beyond/below the S/O, but without the Dynamic/Static
split of these deeper realitiesl it was still-born.
As said, it's a tendency to see all thinking and/or ideas as
"intellectual patterns", for instance that the Babylonians plans for
building their Hanging Gardens were the workings of intellect, but
because this era was before the intellectual level it's clearly
wrong. Pirsig finally saw this fallacy (the Paul Turner letter) but
his "revision" was so vague and half-hearted that it hardly made it
any better. He was a hair's breadth from affirming the SOL, but
then backed away with the "Oriental intellect".
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
