> Ron:
> I think you are misinterpreting the moral hierarchy,
> the complex
> system of society and individual do define what is
> known
> as the intellectual level as per Arlo's comments.
> The intellectual
> level as we know it is a human level almost
> exclusively as it
> sits now. I think Pirsig arranged the levels in a
> hierarchy to culminate
SA: Here's a question. Do you think ideas are free
enough that they live without human control to a
certain degree? I'll try to put this into context.
We've heard of the example of feral children. They
are more biological, not even very social. So, it
would seem humans can live without ideas, though this
would be missing out on a lot. Also, ideas are
emphasized in the human realm more than any other
creature on the planet that we know about. Yet, don't
you think ideas seem parasitic, not in the usually
bad, sickly understanding of parasites, but they live
on and come at you in society and you just have to
deal with them. Whatever the current ideas are in
your social circle these ideas will come at you, and
you must deal with them and how you deal with them is
based on the thought system you currently hold. I
guess what I'm getting at is the idea that thoughts
can be moq-isolated (by this I'm trying to avoid the
usually baggage that comes with the concept isolation.
By this term, I'm referring to the focus-field
understanding. Where isolation is a focus amidst a
larger field of experience, any questions please
ask.). Thoughts can be moq-isolated, meaning,
thoughts, though dependent upon humans on this planet
for what we know, thoughts seem to have the ability to
work on their own and we, as people, as this
biological and social organism, can view how the
current sphere of thoughts we are in contact with, to
a certain degree, these thoughts control us. Ian,
this might fit in with your definition of memes.
Ron:
> all evolution to the individual human experience.
> This is what I was
> talking about. All I can ever know about anything is
> through my own
> senses, experiences, thoughts and perceptions, which
> to attain an even
> higher moral standard per MoQ levels is to focus on
> my own immediate
> experience.
SA: I agree to a certain degree, for I'm part of a
larger event that has much more to do than what I'm
aware of. Instead of putting the focus on this tiny
human skeleton, I quite easy can see how I'm tapped
into something larger this skin and bones. I'm more a
tree branch and the rest of the cosmos is the the much
larger tree I'm connected to. So, instead of taking
possession of this universe and saying it is only
according to what I know, it's more conceivable to me
to state that this universe dictates everything about
me. Do we point at a tree branch and say the tree
branch possess its' own way of life or can we step
back and notice that the tree itself possesses the
tree branch?
Please stick with me on this, and let's discuss our
view points. Maybe you'll understand mine, and I
your's.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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/
