Greetings Bo, > > 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.
There is a different in both definition and understanding here imho. The intellect I am referring to is the function of the left-brain interpreter module, the story-maker. In today's world, the left-brain is more and more active and the interpreter module more or less governs what most of us see, hear, believe (or it's interpretations thereof). The knots of the intellect are in this interpreter module -- that is what is needed to be broken. Cognition can be better served when our conditioning doesn't dictate what we sense (or how we interpret what we sense). Thus my emphasis on the mind/intellect being a tool only. > > 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. That is the bewildering thing -- MoQ rejects it, but is built almost entirely on SOM (as a contrast to SOM). > 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). See, that sea of Superstition and poverty is a mythical beast of the recent past and a man-made reality of the 19th Century colonialism (If I think I understood what you're alluding to here). This distinction has either been non-existent in the Eastern context or been relegated to the inconsequential status that is it's due (again my opinion here). If you study the history of India or China (not the European rendition of it thereof), you'll find lots of advances made in the fields of Science and Mathematics (especially in the case of India) several centuries before they shone forth in Europe. > 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. Since all we know is S/O dichotomy, we think it is not possible. That's why Tao-te-ching makes so little sense to us (especially those of us who cannot transcend this S/O divide at all) -- since such a world is inconceivable to us. But is it really? > 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? > Where in the Eastern traditions do we come across the deification of subject vs object? For eg: In Advaita tradition, it is emphasized that only thing that is true is Consciousness, matter is a subset/manifestation of it only. The only thing that prevents us from knowing this is our ignorance (or Avidya). That being the case, there exists methods to dispel this avidya and thus reclaim the knowledge that was obscured by it. Yoga/Samkhya philosophy does the same. The only school of Indian philosophy that gives credence to matter over Consciousness is the Vaisheshika school (or Atomist school), where they propose that the "Anu" (Atom) it the primary constituent of creation. Consciousness is but a function of Matter... The East-West chasm exists because of three things imho -- 1) Lack of first-hand knowledge of the East by the West (in most cases) 2) The "brush off" of Eastern systems without understanding them (lack of Purva Paksha) by the West 3) The inability to transcend the Mind/Matter divide by the West Regards, Dwai > 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/ 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/
