[quote] > Do you think that a cat can think? "To think" carries tons of SOM. What you ask is really "are cats self-aware"? Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter where the "self-awareness" term - not belong - but was CREATED.
[/quote] Consciousness (or self-awareness) is nothing but Dynamic Quality, hence it is the very essence of all "things" while at the same time existing beyond it. We are spiritual beings tied to a mortal framework of body and mind. Akshay On 24/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Peter > > On 23 Nov. you wrote: > > > 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. > > But English is not my first language. In the old days when there > were other Europeans around this site I used to find them easier > to understand than the "natives". But no sore feelings, I > appreciate your honesty. > > > 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: > > GOOD! > > > Do you think that a cat can think? > > "To think" carries tons of SOM. What you ask is really "are cats > self-aware"? Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part > of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter > where the "self-awareness" term - not belong - but was > CREATED. > > If you can stand some more on "intelligence"? It is a biological > pattern by way of the neural complexity called brain that makes > higher organisms able to store former experience (Read and > Write memory) and retrieve it - play around with it in imaginary > scenarios - what makes them able to learn from experience > included seeing other perform an act. At the bio.(cat) level this > does not include a self or language, particularly not the internal > kind we call "thinking". As the social level rose on top of biology it > adopted this pattern and because the biological pattern which > spawned "society" were Homo Sapiens, brain and intelligence > were enormous. If language was part of the social level from the > start or developed is a big question, the Neanderthals certainly > lived in family and tribal groups, but did not have language. > Anyway, with language came the silent form called "thinking", so > did names and a group identity that transcended the animal > range. Kingdoms and other "doms" arose. (this is a leap of tens > of thousands of years course) I find this passage from ZAMM > catching this reality so well. > > One must first get over the idea that the time span > between the last caveman and the first Greek > philosophers was short. The absence of any history for > this period sometimes gives this illusion. But before the > Greek philosophers arrived on the scene, for a period of > at least five times all our recorded history since the Greek > philosophers, there existed civilizations in an advanced > state of development. They had villages and cities, > vehicles, houses, marketplaces, bounded fields, > agricultural implements and domestic 381 animals, and > led a life quite as rich and varied as that in most rural > areas of the world today. And like people in those areas > today they saw no reason to write it all down, or if they > did, they wrote it on materials that have never been > found. Thus we know nothing about them. The ``Dark > Ages'' were merely the resumption of a natural way of life > that had been momentarily interrupted by the Greeks. > > This also shows that - to Phaedrus - "The Greeks" are the pivot > point that changed everything , in ZAMM they meant the coming > of SOM, in LILA it ought to have been the emergence of 4th. > level. But more on INTELLECT in another post. > > > Do you think quality can manifest itself in any way without the > > inorganic? > > The quick answer is "no", but it requires some explanation. At > first Pirsig put great emphasize on a QUALITY outside the MOQ > (that creates an infinite regress) He later "recanted" and said that > the Quality he speaks about in ZAMM is the DQ of the MOQ. In > that case the basic postulate is Reality=DQ/SQ (which isn't > different from the Reality=Quality in any other respect than > removing the Quality outside/ahead of the MOQ) thus Quality's > first manifestation was/is the inorganic level. > > Everything in my opinion of course, but I can't add this at the end > of each sentence. > > 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/
