SA, Marsha, Bo Bo has it. Once again we see how messy things get when there isn't a clear WORKING definition of the 4th level.
- see comment below > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:09:57 +0100 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] Zen > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > 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) This I think is worth underlining a thousand times around, because I think here is the core of the unwillingness to accept the SOL. The thing is, that now that S/O based rationality has begun to really take control (in some parts of the world) all other patterns are affected. Not in their quality reactions of course, but since higher levels dominate lower ones, it is bound to be rationality that permeates (?) how all of the levels goes about their business - because they are being controlled. More or less anyway. The S/O rationality is a powerful thing. One cannot enough thank RMP for showing the real nature of it. This however doesn't mean that we should kill it. Just modify it. IMO of course. >> 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 Regards Chris 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/
