Spirit and Chris
On 5 Mars:
Chris had said:
> > So you can see I am not anti-intellectual at all. I
> > want the MOQ to work.
> > Regarding your quotes, I know them, and I like them.
> > But what am I supposed
> > to do with them? Think about them when I meditate?
> > No, not that. Have them
> > in mind when I discuss the MOQ? But I do! In my view
> > of the MOQ everything
> > is quality. Static and Dynamic.
Spiritual:
> Ok. I see the main hitch to you not understanding what I'm saying.
> You regard the intellect as s/o only. I regard the intellect as being
> able to intellectualize in ways that are not only s/o.
Here is SA's hitch: To intellectualize is synonymous "to think". I
refer to Pirsig's letter
If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive
cultures just because they are thinking about things, why
stop there? How about chimpanzees? Don't they think?
..... Our intellectual level is broadening to a point where it
is losing all its meaning.
Intellect is the ability to distinguish between what's subjective and
what's objective, my dictionary says so and I have referred to it
repeatedly but it's water on geese. Another quote from LILA
shows that S/O is intellect
The culture in which we live hands us a set of intellectual
glasses to interpret experience with, and the concept of
the primacy of subjects and objects is built right into these
glasses.
> Anything that doesn't fall into your s/o intellect instantly becomes a
> social pattern.
It's too simplistic to speak of "anything that doesn't fall into S/O"
or "anything not containing subjects and objects". The many
patterns that Pirsig refers to as "intellectual"
It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the
moral code of intellect-vs.-society, the moral right of
intellect to be free of social control. Freedom of speech;
freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas
corpus; government by consent-these "human rights" are
all intellect-vs.-society issues.
..are derived from the 4th. level regarding itself as OBJECTIVE
(truth) while regarding the social values as SUBJECTIVE (with
the reservation that intellect doesn't know any levels)
> Mysticism to you is some kind of 'religion' for you incline towards
> logical positivism, my guess. We've been down this path before, and I
> many before you came aboard into this forum. They both are
> intellectual, and mysticism is mentioned in Lila as understanding the
> dynamic nature of living more than positivism, and the complaints of
> positivism of mysticism is it's some 'new age' event. I'm not going to
> get locked in the either-or struggle. I notice the third prong in the
> intellect - right down the middle. I find this discussion is near the
> end for we've come to that point were we are grounded upon certain ways
> of intellectualizing reality and they are diverse. Diversity is good.
> Welcome to the well-spring of democracy.
In LILA the "mystics" are among those opposed to "doing
metaphysics" and thus in the same league as logical positivism,
albeit from different premises. I don't know when the "mystic"
term was coined, but I believe it was in Medieval times when
some individuals felt that dogma and rituals weren't enough for
their religious hunger, thus a Christian monk, a Muslim sufi and a
Hindu ascetic are all Q-social "dynamics" (if you must). But THIS
dynamism was not what brought on the intellectual level. And
intellectual "mysticism" was not what brought about the Quality
Idea on, but young Phaedrus who was the most intense
intellectual of his time. No, mysticism is stale, infertile, a dead
end.
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/
