Hi Gav 17 Dec. you wrote: (in you no-caps style)
> i think that the subject-object split underlies the intellectual level. That's it! But why not say that is IS the intellectual level? Is there a difference? > i think julian jaynes and bo would agree. You have possibly heard about one British writer Colin Wilson (my guru when I was [relatively] young) He made the so-called split brain theory his focus for many years. This forum discussed Jaynes' ideas very hefty once, but I'll have brush up my opinion on it. > the intellectual level is that level where the individual is born - the > individual is a subject, the subject split from the world of objects. Agree. And this subject/world of objects is totally different from the biological "this body/foreign objects" and even the social "self/other" distinction. > the problem with SOM is that this split was presumed to be the whole > nature of reality, rather than a tool with which to analogise it. Even more agreement, but as said (to David M): After this context is seen (that SOM is the misunderstanding of being "the nature of reality" while the S/O is a powerful tool) why not see it as MOQ's 4th. level? Besides, the best part of LILA indicates this. > the split is crucial. 'the fall' is this split. this > myth is about man's fall from paradisical unity > because he sought: THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. result: > eviction. result: the journey of the self begins. A fall certainly, but I don't think it was THE fall. IMO all levels in their time looked back on the former as innocent and the social level (which was the introduction of the burden of morals) looked back on biology as blissfull ignorance. To intellect society also seemed like a paradise lost hence ZAMM's identification of Aretê with Quality itself. > the myth of the fall has to be seen from both > directions: yes it is a bummer to lose oneness with > all, with god, but it is necessary if we are to become > gods ourselves, which is the point of human evolution. Impressive ! But is the social level "oneness with all"? In the Paul Turner letter Pirsig referred to the old biblical books as "lack of intellectual value" which must mean the hey-day of social value and that was certainly not a time of general solidarity, but of group think. Holy land and chosen people and such. Social value is identification with a common cause in my opinion. But again I agree very much about the SUBJECT self that the SOM - or intellectual level - introduced as a fall in its own right. > the intellect is a powerful tool facilitates this > spiritual growth. it leads first into separation - the > split - as the child (after age 7 i believe) becomes > individuated. from here the ego begins to assume > control. > after the child has become a fully individuated adult > the intellect begins to lead him back to unity, to a > resolution of the split. to a diminution of the ego. > the MOQ is a great example of the intellect doing > this. > intellect points the way - takes us the the point of > departure....and the beginning of wholeness, unity > once more, but this time *conscious* of our own > godhood, our identity with the cosmos. This is similar to Alan Watts' presentation of the Confucian/Tao relationship in "The Way of Zen" > so bo is right, the subject/object split is > inseparable from the intellectual level. it gave rise > to it. even when we are thinking in MOQ terms we are > still subjects thinking in terms of objects. the > crucial difference is that *we are now aware of this*. To say that I agree is an understatement! > this awareness means that the we can forget about > reaching absolute truth....no one is absolutely right > or wrong...no idea is absolutely right or wrong. we > are always in the realm of relativity, > context-dependence at the intellectual level. the > absolute is *experienced* pre-intellectually; it is > unequivocal. OK at the metaphysical "high ground " this is valid, but we can't wander around up there always, and at the intellectual - science and objectivity (truth) rules. Yet, it will not cause us any metaphysical qualms. > the intellect is the key that opens the door to the > experience of one's own godhood or buddha nature. Most friendly but a bit frustrated: It sounds like you see the 4th. level=S/O, but then - like Pirsig - you end with a cryptic remark that kind of nullifies it. Intellect is a static level, it's the MOQ which is the key. It's no level though. 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/
