Hi-ho Bo --
> This assertion (that intellect does not exist independently of > their author) looked a bit peculiar at first, but is a perfect > demonstration of the faulty understanding of the "intellectual > level" that you (understandably) harbor, but that most MOQists > shares with you, namely that of mind, and that mind is biological > (brain) subsidiary. > > Why you associated me with this most un-MOQish understanding > made me look at you original post of Monday 19. I was wondering why I hadn't triggered a response from you. Let me first confess that I never saw Pirsig's need to divide existence into a game of Animal-Vegetable-Mineral. (I guess his patterning game goes Inorganic-Organic-Social-Intellectual?) You've helped me understand that it's because of his anthropological orientation. The MOQ is probably the last of the Darwinian ontologies--everything evolves from simplicity to complexity, so the 'yard lines' in Pirsig's game are really timeline markers. That's somewhat ironic to me, for I think of time as the mode of subjective awareness; which means that Pirsig is defining his MOQ in SOM terms! You also seem to hold to this tetra-level evolution: > All levels rose on top of the former and adopted it for own > purpose, thus intellect - as the highest level - sits on top of all > lower levels. The ability to think (store and manipulate former > experience, what we call "intelligence") the 4th. level adopted > from the 2nd. (by way of the 3rd. that had exploited it for > millennias) Language intellect adopted directly from the 3rd. Your > "author" (the mind) is the 4th. levels name for the intelligent > SUBJECT that - in intellect' view - resides in our brain. This > mind/brain (S/O) distinction is intellect's VALUE!!!. The fact that > this subject seemingly surveys both the subjective and the > objective realities is result of ever more turns of the S/O screw. It > has turned since the Greeks and we may no longer figure out all > its intricacies. The MOQ is an Ariadne thread that finally can lead > us out of intellect's S/O labyrinth. Bo, isn't philosophy complex enough without having to build artificial labyrinths and multi-level steps to prop it up? What's wrong with plain old subject/object duality? Consider that duality is the beginning of numerality, and that existential reality in no more than a dichotomy--a subject looking at an object. The physical world is far more complex, of course, but ontologically it's only the other half of the duality. Nothing in existence commits us to a four-level ontology. That's an arbitrary choice on the part of MOQ's author that everbody seems to have bought into without question, including Bo Skutvik. > Who says that "Intellect is extracorporeal level". It's > "extra-social" if any, but listen for the millionth-and first time: "Extra-social" is "extra-populus" is "extra-human" is "extra-corporeal" in my book. WHY, Bo? Why do you want to make the one faculty by which you experience reality and interpret the world an inanimate, non-human. lifeless level? I find it incredulous that a sane, intelligent person would refuse to acknowledge the thoughts in his head as his own. No wonder Phaedrus went nuts!! Thanks for writing, Bo. (I'll feel better after dinner.) --Ham 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/
