Hi Chris: >> Steve: >> In the MOQ intellect is a type of pattern of value and the MOQ itself >> is an intellectual pattern. There is no such thing as an MOQ pattern. >> In other words, I don't know what you are getting at.
Chris: >"intellectual pattern" is something that the MOQ invents. Steve: This term is something that Robert M Pirsig invented. Chris: >The intellectual >pattern exists in the MOQ only, and it does NOT mean thinking - Steve: But RMP says it does mean thinking. He defined it as such. Could it be that you are not thinking about thinking in the way RMP is? Chris: >you ALL know >this! Steve: I certainly don't know this, and as far as I can tell only you and Bo know this. Chris: > The tendency to extend the intellectual >level far more then necessary I think is a residue of SOM thinking. When >people start to think about their thoughts as separate from the world they >are living in, making an effective S/O division that's really when the >Intellectual level starts to grow, you all know me to hold this position. >Furthermore, this special way of perceiving the world/everything then puts >everything within frames of it's own - the SOM, and "thinking" is then >forever associated with this - indeed this is what "thinking" MEANS to all >intents and purposes. Steve: If thinking means makin effective S/O distinction and that distinction is intellect, doesn't that mean that intellect is thinking? Chris: >Furthermore, when this view takes hold, it is >naturally so that it says that "thinking" has always been around, logical >thinking, illogical thinking - it doesn't matter, it's Thinking all the >same. Since this is a fundamental way of perceiving the world this becomes >the most basic and natural way of things, Thinking is fundamental, and makes >up the world. > >When the MOQ comes along and says that there really is no such thing as >thinking, Steve: Where does Pirsig say there is no such thing as thinking? >it does so within this frame of referances which has become >fundamental, and impossible to escape - the languages we use is formed by >this notion (even the word notion). So, when Bodvar (and now I) say that the >intellectual level is only the Subject/Object division, this poses a >problem. > >"But people has always been thinking!" you say, and "what about animals, >aren't they thinking?" - "the people of ancient Mesopotamia, weren't they >thinking?" Yes, they were, and, yes, they are, if you use "thinking" the way >it has been used now for about 2000 years. Steve: This is not what Pirsig means by thinking. He says that it is the manipulations of abstract symbols that stand for patterns of experience. Animals don't do that. Chris: >But not in a MOQ sense. In our >reality there is no such thing as thinking, there is only Quality, and the >way it's manifested. Steve: One way that Quality is manifested is thoughts. Chris >For the last 2000 years there has been the notion that thinking has always >been around, and it just differed a bit, then the MOQ comes along and says - >no, not really. Steve: This is true. Chris: >But that thing, that notion of thinking always being around >in different ways makes up a world view that is so different from any other >things that has been around and will be around I'll wager, that it >constitutes a Level in the MOQ book. Steve: A level is a type of pattern of value and patterns of thought are indeed distinct from social patterns. Chris: >So, when I see people anxiously wanting to extend the intellectual level >further and further I think it is just residues of the grip that this S/O >world view still has on us all. Steve: I don't know who is trying to extent intellect to animals as ou suggest. Regards, Steve 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/
