Bo said: 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!
dmb says: The intellectual level has nothing to do with thinking? What do you call the capacity or ability we use here every day, then? If intellect is the only the distinction between mind and matter, then what is it that makes all the other distinctions? I can't make any sense of these assertions. Bo said: 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. dmb says: The MOQ says that mind and matter are derived from experience rather than the cause or conditions of experience. The MOQ rejects the idea that all of reality is one or the other, but it certainly does not reject the experience from which they are derived. It rejects the ontological, metaphysical status of the subjective self and the objective reality and instead says those categories are just one of many possible ways to interpret experience, just one of many ways to divide experience. I mean, it seems you do not understand the problem, let alone the solution. Bo said: 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! dmb says: Why? Why can't there be thinking without SOM? What did Pirsig use to conceive and compose the MOQ? What did James use to write his essays on radical empiricism? What did Dewey employ to write about his immediate empiricism? What are you using to make these assertions? What about all the rest of us here at moq.org? These are rhetorical questions designed to put the absurdity of your view on display and not to be answered, but feel free to try. But of course you can't use your mind or intellect to answer because there is no such thing, right? Bo said: 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. dmb says: That helps to make my point. The existence of thought systems like Taoism, Buddhism, Transcendentalism, Radical Empiricism, Philosophical mysticism, the MOQ and many others are living proof that SOM is not the only way to conceptualize reality. That's the central reason why your assertions to the contrary are not valid. _________________________________________________________________ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008 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/
