Ham
6 Oct.. Priday wrote:
(not to make this overly long I start here)
> Again, you are making a cosmic level out of a uniquely human function.
> This is where you and I are on different track I don't see Intellect
> as a kind of "Quality" floating around in the cosmos, waiting for man
> to "latch onto" it.
I see your need for launching this to avoid being drawn into my
reasoning, but wait.
> Essence is not intellect, intelligence, knowledge, or morality. All of
> these attributes are man's understanding of his relation to otherness
> (i.e., experiential existence). The primary, "eternal" source of
> being-aware is not the physical universe. Sensible experience begins
> with the differentiation of otherness (being) from Essence. It is the
> appearance of finitude (objective reality) as apprehended by a sensible
> subject. "Intelligent Design" is simply the logical order, or symmetry,
> which man applies to the universe in the process of interpreting his
> experience.
"Sensible experience" does NOT begin with "the differentiation of
otherness (being) from Essence", it begins with "...the appearance of
finitude (objective reality) as apprehended by a sensible subject" Again
the latter is the necessary step for the former.
> Take away cognitive awareness and there is no experience, universe,
> intellect, or quality.
Will Essence remain?
> I am perfectly willing (and anxious) to understand you, Bo. My
> problem is accepting the notion that Intellect is a superhuman
> quality.
Look dear Ham, one point. "Man" (as consciousness) disappears in all
systems unless it ends in absurdity, like above about "take away
cognitive awareness..." Thus the intellectual level is neither super or
sub-human because there is no man with consciousness in the MOQ
... outside its static intellectual level that is, but this in return is all
about
it.
> Your cosmology would have us deify intellect, making it the Creator of
> the universe. I could understand Love, Consciousness, Beingness, or
> even Value as the ultimate reality; but not Intellect.
This assertion must stem from your discussing with other people. The
MOQ says that the former SOM where "man" is the sole arbiter of
reality is it's 4th static level, thus if anything intellect "defamed".
> For me, intellect is the psycho-neurological capacity of the cognizant
> subject to derive intelligence (relational knowledge) from
> value-sensibility. It does not exist independently of man.
Yes, I know, but if honest you will have to admit that Essence does not
survive these premises. It's supposed to be prior to the cognizant
subject or man. And you are right! Like Pirsig were in his first insight
about Quality prior to the man/world dichotomy .
> Could you, then, elaborate on what it is about Intellect that
> convinces you of its primary status? For example, what is intellect
> in an unrealized state?
This is your intellect ("the psycho-neurological capacity of the
cognizant subject") MOQ's intellectual level is the VALUE of the
distinction between your intellect and its world. Meaning that this
distinction is not basic, the DQ/SQ is. Intellect in an unrealized state is
the dynamic future.
> Do you believe the universe itself to be intellectual? Or, is Quality
> a "cognizant" essence?
The universe is the inorganic QUALITY level, or vice versa.
> I'd also appreciate it if you would explain your concept of intellect
> without resorting to "levels".
For the nth. time, intellect without resorting to levels is your intellect,
namely the cognizant subject that looks out on a world. Known as
SOM!!
> Thanks again, Bo.
It's great fun to discuss with one who don't shy away from the
fundamentals.
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/
