[Ron] If I may throw in my two cents worth, Looking at the levels in A purely objective fashion is the first fallacy I believe. the levels are not a representation of an objective reality, they are an intellectual understanding of experience. experience equates to (Quality/morality/reality ) pick your objective nomenclature. The Self is a clumsy word but consciousness comes closer to the term experience. So that The MoQ offers that MoQ Morality is experience. The highest form Being pre-intellectual. The most moral.
[Krimel] Certainly the levels are presented as a taxonomic tool for helping to represent reality. But problems arise from the get go. The levels are supposed to be discrete. Yet organic chemistry is at the inorganic level. Primate societies of which ours is just one are at the biological level. And no one here except Bo seems to have a clue what the intellectual level is and no one agrees with him. I don't recall much discussion from Pirsig about the "self". You say it is close to consciousness but am I not myself when I'm asleep? Heck there is even less agree about what consciousness is that what the self is. As for the pre-intellectual being the highest form of Being... break that one down for me. I am no fan of anthropomorphism but rocks are pre-intellectual. Beyond that how can the intellectual level be the highest level but the pre-intellectual is the highest form of being? 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/
