Hi Bo, [Bo] > > > When your premises in addition (to misunderstaning the 4th. level) > > > is that the static hierarchy is "dogmatic and meaningless" no > > > wonder. But listen: The idea of God is also the idea of Zews or any > > > other deity - as is that of the moon and stars as deities - and in a MOQ > > > context this is social value (for a value it is) but compared to it > > > intellect is a higher value and deems the idea of god(s) to be > > > superstition. This it does because intellect is a blind to being a value > > > level (as the rest of the levels are) only from the MOQ the value > > > context is seen.
[Platt] > > Good point about seeing the world in the MOQ "context" instead of > > through the usual subject/object lens. "Intellect is blind to being a > > value level" sums up the problem beautifully. Maybe some here who might > > better relate to the idea that the MOQ is a whole new "paradigm" instead > > of just another view resting on conventional assumptions. "Paradigm" > > appeals to fans of Thomas Kuhn's philosophy. [Bo] > Glad you see this point, I had the impression that you saw the > intellectual level as "worthless", but what I've tried to convey is > that the subject/object distinction as SOM (a world view where > the said distinction is reality's ground) creates the worthlessness, > the isolated subject facing an indifferent world, while the S/O as a > (mere) static good can be the highest and best, yet subordinate to > MOQ's DQ/SQ. Your recognizing this as a paradigm shift is also > most apt, that's what it is. Perhaps even a greater one than > Kuhn's original model. The MOQ itself is no level as such, but > merely the said "alta vista" from where the Quality context - > including intellect as a static level - is seen. I don't consider the intellect as a "worthless" static level any more than the other levels. But, the original question was, "What is the role of intellect in determining what is good?" Based on Pirsig's repeated warnings against attempts to define Quality my answer was, "None," As you know, the square-one postulate of the MOQ is: "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions." (Lila, 5) So in determining what is good (Quality), intellect plays at best a secondary, static role, especially subject-object science which couldn't spot a value in front of its nose even if the entire structure of it's ideology depended on it. IMO, as you say. Best, Platt 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/
