Hello Dwai, excellent post. 8 Jan. you wrote: Bo before: > > 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.
Dwai: > 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. Bo now: My understanding is that the 4th. level has nothing to do with brain or thinking. The static patterns do nowhere jump from a material world into a mental one. The matter/mind distinction (SOM) isn't valid, but merely the intellectual level itself. Do you understand? Intellect is not MIND, but the MIND/MATTER divide! (forgive my insistent style, I just try to make you understand, if you agree is another matter) > 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). I know about the left/right brain theory - the interpreter/artist - distinction, but even this is SOM to the marrow (see later) but the MOQ turns circles around SOM. > 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. I must lecture: Senses belong to the biological realm as do the brain that translates these into experience. Biological value doesn't "dictate" what's sensed, rather senses are biological value . When social value rose from biology, it did not began to dictate how to interpret senses, it rather rose ABOVE the senses' dictatorship. Intellect likewise has nothing to to with senses, but is the objective approach that made it possible to rise above social dictatorship. A result of this approach were the sciences and its knowledge of (f, ex.) the brain's lay-out and immediately forced its S/O matrix on it. The left brain is the objective analytical one while the right is subjective, intuitive, artistic. See, the left brain and its content istn't intellect. Bo: > > 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. Dwai: > That is the bewildering thing -- MoQ rejects it, but is built almost > entirely on SOM (as a contrast to SOM). Yes, the "orthodox" interpretation of intellect (as thinking, mind or variations thereof) makes it bewildering, but the SOL interpretation makes it wonderfully simple. Bo: > > 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). Dwai > 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). No, "third world" allusions intended. Intellect arrived with the Greeks (SOM) in Europe and was a rise from the mythological/social past of that region. > 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). According to Pirsig there was an "Oriental intellectual level independent of the Greeks " manifest as the Upanishads philosophy. Do you have any comment s here? IMO there can't be an non-S/O intellect - that's the impossible "thinking" interpretation - but perhaps philosophy presupposes an objective approach, a will to find the truth. THAT one I buy! > 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. Right! This may be the key, but do you agree that the said cultures somehow rose above this objective scientific (intellectual) attitude, they didn't let it develop into a metaphysics - the SOM of the West - but went on to a Quality-like stage (the Rta chapter in LILA) > 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? SOM has dominated Western culture, but Pirsig has transcended it and the MOQ is the result. Telling enough I could not make sense of Tao-te-ching and Buddhism (my source was Alan Watts) but after reading ZAMM it suddenly made a lot of sense. > > 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? No deification - that's the very point - but a pragmatic use of the objective approach as in science, mathematics ..etc. > 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). Right: a realization of ONE reality that has spawned all with matter just one creation. A Metaphysics of Consciousness is possible, no sarcasm. > 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... That sounds much like the materialist vs idealist struggle of SOM. One claiming to be the source of the other - yet dependent on it. I had hoped that the Oriental Philosophy saw the subject/object schism itself as "maya". > 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 TOTAL agreement, particularly re.the 3rd. point. Thanks Dwai, you obviously read my posts and try to understand. Hope you find it worth another round. 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/
