Hi Bo,
> > 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) > I see what you mean. If that is the case, then what is the mind? > > 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. > While the sensory organs might belong the the biological realm, what about the sensations themselves. The "data" (for a lack of better words to describe it) itself? I don't agree with the clear differentiation between the levels themselves. Why did biological patterns "evolve" into social patterns? For self-preservation. If so, what purpose would the social patterns have started out to serve but the re-inforce the biological patterns? I think you misunderstood my calling the interpreter as intellect. What I mean is that these days (especially) that is the accepted norm. The subjective brain is dismissed as a "dessert" at best and a vestige at worst these days. Wouldn't you say that this era is that of the abject Materialist? > > Yes, the "orthodox" interpretation of intellect (as thinking, mind or > variations thereof) makes it bewildering, but the SOL > interpretation makes it wonderfully simple. > I would like to know more about it.. > > 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. > My apologies for having misunderstood you. But I don't think that rendition of history (Greek origin) is entirely accurate though... Wonder why Alexander wanted to invade India? How did he know about it. Why did they find Sarasvati seals in Egypt and Greece? Perhaps the ancients weren't as cut off from each other as is often led to believe... >> > > 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! > The Purva Mimamsa school of philosophy is based on that, from what I understand -- Rta (same as Tao) But I do see what you mean -- the Means vs the End issue. >> 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) Means vs End. In the West the Means has become the End. > > 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. > And I appreciate the MoQ for that. And Pirsig as well. > > No deification - that's the very point - but a pragmatic use of the > objective approach as in science, mathematics ..etc. > The goal I believe is different. >> 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". > In not so many terms I think. Maya is the ignorance -- as a result yes, SOM is Maya (due to ignorance). But it's not made a big deal about in general. Acknowledge it exists, learn it's nature and transcend it. Regards, Dwai 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/
