Dwai. Long ago (2 January) you said:
> I am in agreement with this. If I understood Pirsig's thesis > correctly, social patterns will try to retain their configuration and > resist change. ie all static patterns will naturally try to resist change. > Dynamic quality will introduce entropy into the static system. > Hmm...thermodynamics? Bo now: Entropy may be more appropriate term than "evolution", the latter conveys the idea that (for instance) the mammal organism is better biology than the amoeba. This isn't so rather more complex and thereby more unstable. This is necessary and good in the overall Quality context because for the next level to form its parent must spawn a pattern unstable or dynamic enough to break free. Bo before: > > The "greater reality" is of course the Quality Reality and it can't be > > "known by intellectual means" (seen from the intellectual level) that's > > the whole point. Intellect is a static level, blind to the "greater > > Quality Reality", this is what I have been banging on for years, but > > most people insist on a "dynamic intellect" that can harbour all kinds > > of ideas included the MOQ. The MOQ applies intelligent analysis, but no > > longer in intellect's service. I don't know what meditation is exactly, > > but I have spent a lot of "energy- work" on loosening intellect's ties.. Dwai: > I would tend to agree with what you have articulated. But yet we try... > Meditation is energy-work -- to break the knots that have formed in our > intellects. Bo now: Intellect in a MOQ context is a static level and the "knots" are intellect's static value, not anything that can be loosened or mended and replaced with "better" knots. This is the mind-like intellectual level that has haunted the MOQ from its start. > In the Indian tradition (and I mean India-Indian), the mind is just > another sensory faculty and isn't put on as great a pedestal that it is > put in the West. And there is a lot more abstraction of the mind (Manas, > Chitta, Vivek, etc) there-in. Even this "mind" seems to be the nesting-place of abstractions and I feel SOM's tug. Listen Dwai - you seem capable of the understanding. The MOQ rejects the SOM thus there is no fundamental subject/object split, no mind contrasted to matter, no inner world contrasted to an outer ...etc. Yet, this distinction is far too valuable to be thrown away, it's modernity, science, progress everything that has lifted existence out of a sea of superstition and poverty (this "sea" is the social level, that once lifted existence up from the biological dog-eat-dog jungle, so good at a lower level, but let that rest). As you possibly know Pirsig's way of integrating SOM is to call the two lower levels "concrete" (to stay with that dichotomy) and the two upper "abstract". This is cumbersome and not really credible (still, let that rest too) my SOL interpretation says that the intellectual level is the S/O distinction, all of it, every bit. Most people seem so stuck in SOM that the 4th. level as mind sticks like glue*). A world without a real S/O-like divide is simply inconceivable, the notion of the S/O only existing as a static good is equally inconceivable. My understanding of the Eastern tradition has always been (at least after the MOQ) that the mind/matter divide is regarded in a similar way, as a useful distinction yet without any deeper reality. Is this anything that jells with your understanding of the East- West chasm? The rest of what you wrote was higly interesting, but for now. 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/
