Hi Bo, on one hand your apparent unwavering confidence in your understanding of the MoQ is persuasive and makes me think I need to understand your point of view more; on the other hand in your posts your use of common words with your own specialised meaning, your poor phraseology, your sometimes patronising responses and that you frequently miss out conjunctions in your explanations and use unusual punctuation all do not help your cause.
It could be my weak brain that's the snag and if I were more familiar with ZAMM and LILA I would be able to decipher better what you mean; so I hope you don't take those comments too negatively, I say them in the hope that they can some how lead me to be able to understand you better. I'm in the process of reading your SOLAQI update but in the meantime I'd like to ask you a couple of, for me, important questions: Do you think that a cat can think? Do you think quality can manifest itself in any way without the inorganic? Kind regards -Peter On 23/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > High Spirits (SA) > > On 20 Nov. you wrote (to me): > > > Ok, the moq isn't the intellectual level according to you? > > Not AT the intellectual level, i.e: no intellectual pattern, is my > claim .. .. to pick nits. > > > I don't know anybody on this forum that states the moq is strictly the > > intellectual level. So, your saying nothing new here, or are you? > > MOQ being THE intellectual level I guess no one claims, but the > MOQ as an intellectual pattern is dogma because Pirsig says so. > > > You like to point out the intellectual level and what it is and what > > the social level is, but what is this moq-metalevel that you espouse? > > If it can't be known partially by using intellect, social, etc..., > > according to you, > > "Using intellect"? Doesn't that reveal that - to you - the 4th. level > is the ability to think. And my standard retort follows: when > ancient people (pre-intellect, there must have been such an > epoch?) figured out explanations of their existence (Myths) were > they using the fourth level? Clearly not. They used intelligence > and that is something else > > It's this mega-trite understanding of the 4th. level as MIND (=the > mental computer where ideas or symbols are manipulated > according to rules of logic) that has haunted the MOQ since its > presentation in LILA. (ZAMM had a correct definition, namely the > subject/object distinction - the value thereof.) > > > then what's the big deal about this moq-metalevel you espouse? > > I did answer that. The big deal is that the MOQ is a "big deal" and > because the levels are sub-sets of the MOQ, the MOQ can by no > twist of logic be a sub-set (pattern) of a level. The MOQ is no > static level, it is the very QUALITY SYSTEM. (Phew, everything > you say can be used against you) > > > What does it do? > > It provides the viewpoint from where the Quality context is seen. > The static levels themselves are blind as dormice re. their own > level role (not blind to quality though). > > > What's it about? What does it have anything to do with this world? I > > really don't know. > > By providing the said view it enlarges "this world" > > > Is it pure experience/direct experience? > > Of course. We know from ZAMM that Phaedrus reached the > insight that some pure - direct - experience preceded (what he > called) "intellect" (much like Poincare's "beauty" and James' > "aesthetic continuum") this was what later became Dynamic > Quality so DQ=pure experience=direct experience. > > End of class. > > 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/
