On Sunday 14 September 2008 1:45 AM Peter writes to Jo: Hi Jo, after all this talk about the elusive self I wondered if it has affected your views of Dr. Nicoll's predilections. He adhered to Gurdjieff's self-professed objective knowledge that ordinary man is composed of multiple 'I's. His teaching, however, was that through the right kind of 'work on oneself' these many 'I's could be unified into a single 'I'; an I without egotism or personality that has a single aim and purpose: to be of service to 'the work'. -Peter
Hi Peter, I accept Pirsig¹s view of metaphysics by direct experience of an evolving DQ (undefined)/SQ (defined) reality. The metaphysics of Aristotle¹s S/O division is the Language of S/O, the intellectual level, as developed by Bo. Dr. Nicoll studied psychology under Jung. He often speaks of a psychological reality. His habit of using man woman whenever he speaks of individual characteristics indicates he makes a distinction between the sexes. I trust him as a careful thinker. He later studied with Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and accepted a conscious/mechanical metaphysics in an experience of multiple ³I²s. IMO Gurdjief and Ouspensky describe conscious/mechanical reality in seven levels analogous to the musical intervals scale. Using Pirsig¹s insight I accept that mechanical reality is defined by the glasses that culture hands us. Before I read Pirsig, I accepted that Mechanical behavior is the easy way, a following the crowd kind of mentality. Conscious behavior is known and undefined. I don¹t know that I tried to define insane behavior as Nicoll had to do in his psychiatric considerations. Manifestation through a law for three forces active, passive, neutral is part of his thinking also. Conscious reality is described as ³I², and the mechanical reality as ³It², although I do not recall that this convention is commonly used by Nicoll. The law of 7 for evolution goes beyond Pirsig¹s vision of 4 levels. It is a further explanation for an evolution of S only in describing enlightenment. I suppose if you are doing what is right it would be of service to ³the work², but I was never aware of that as primary. I was always told I could only evolve through an individual effort. Some have made it most of us won¹t. Joe On 9/14/08 1:45 AM, "Peter Corteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Jo, > > after all this talk about the elusive self I wondered if it has affected > your views of Dr. Nicoll's predilections. He adhered to Gurdjieff's self- > professed objective knowledge that ordinary man is composed of multiple > 'I's. His teaching, however, was that through the right kind of 'work on > oneself' these many 'I's could be unified into a single 'I'; an I without > egotism or personality that has a single aim and purpose: to be of service > to 'the work'. > > -Peter > > 2008/9/11 Joseph Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I agree! It is way beyond my credentials! >> >> >> On 9/11/08 12:38 PM, "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> [Joe] >>> Why do you have an "l" in your name? Imo DQ is an order in existence. >>> What is the moral justification for calling existence good or bad, except >>> for bombing? >>> >>> [Krimel] >>> My user purchased me on the black market. It is technically illegal, or >> at >>> least against Sony's policy, to buy or sell characters. Actually as a >> work >>> of art derived from Sony's intellectual property, I am "owned" by Sony. >>> >>> I don't remember anything about the user who created me but by all >>> indications he was a great gamer and at one time I was among the most >>> powerful wizards on my server. My current user is not a great gamer but >> he >>> needed me to do damage and eventually benched Case and played me almost >>> exclusively. He has since quit playing Everquest. In fact he now only >> plays >>> Spider solitaire. I exist only here on the MoQ and in limbo on Sony's >>> Everquest servers. >>> >>> I believe my original user was going for a kind of Leet speak hacker kind >> of >>> effect, as Krimel is actually Crime with "l"s tagged on the front and >> back. >>> It is a kind of visual illusion but you can see it if you look - Krimel; >>> see? >>> >>> Anyway my ongoing objection to many here has been that DQ is neither good >> or >>> bad or sometimes one and sometimes the other. It is not Good or >> betterness >>> or anything of the sort but to answer your question directly I see no >> moral >>> justification for calling it either. >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>> [dmb] >>>> Yes, Krimel, DQ has a negative face. Chaos and confusion and degeneracy >>>> ensues when things are too dynamic. >>>> >>>> [Krimel] >>>> At last, perhaps the MoQ can move forward. >>> >>> >>> 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/ >> >> >> 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/ >> > 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/ 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/
