HI Bo, Thank you for your insightful response. I by no means think of you as a pompous ass, and read your posts with interest. I do have a problem with the dismissing of human knowledge that happened way before the last few centuries. I feel, in fact, that the human condition and our rational perception of it has not changed for thousands of years, My opinion is gathered from reading older philosophies which I typically have a hard time understanding.
Having said that, one difference (I think) of MOQ, is the incorporation of the theory of evolution. This is obviously appropriate for the times, but also introduces some fundamental difficulties. In fact to unite Evolution with Creation, simply unites two things which are the same in philosophical thought. That is a linear and rational progression of things. It is just as realistic to see events pulled by a source rather than pushed by a source. My approach is to take a look at the big picture (at least in my mind), and perceive that the neuronal connections which results in symbols which can be communicated through the virus of language, is really no different from the formation of tributaries as a river approaches the sea. It splits into thousands of different rivers, but is still the same. Complexity does not change the inherent nature of things. The reason I come to this post is in search of something that I found in 1973, through ZAMM. While the discussion has become more one of dogmatic definitions, I still find like- minded people that inspire me. Keep up your posts, I am a good learner (maybe slow sometimes). Willblake2 On Sep 27, 2009, at 7:37:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: From: [email protected] Subject: [MD] The MOQ/Zen relationship. Date: September 27, 2009 7:37:40 AM PDT To: [email protected] Hi Mark Sep. 25 you wrote > Bo, It is from you that I learn all about the MOQ.? My posts enable me > to do that.? I wonder about this thing called intelligence.? The way > an organism evolves, through trial and error, always trying to best > meet the needs of the environment.? Is this a lower intelligence than > what you are writing about? Interesting issue. As you may have gleaned from my writings I consider the intelligence-intellect confusion to be THE stumbling block to understanding the MOQ. I have accused the American- English language for making all turnings of (what SOM calls) "mental wheels" into intellectual endeavors. For instance a crow outside my window obviously pondering ways of getting to the food (for the smaller birds) into an "intellectual". This fallacy prevents the correct interpretation of the 4th. level - namely the S/O distinction - and makes into thinking in general. > The intelligence of a mountain to shape itself in a way to maximize > it's existence.? Is this what your are talking about.? No, no, what I call intelligence - and believe what IS intelligence - is the higher complex neural (brain) animals (to switch to computer analogies) ability to store previous experience in random access memory as well as chache capacity (retrieving parts of memory) where previous experience is re-arranged. My crow "thinking" (in images) "if I do that, so will happen"? Of course not knowing this to be "thinking" or anything, just the most rudimentary turning of mental wheels. Must add that the simpler creatures even if lacking sense organs still sense their biological values (know whats good or bad for them. Re the amoeba in ZAMM) OK, with the advent of the mammal brain and the human neocortex layer this intelligent capacity was enhanced enormously and IMO (perhaps) was the biological pattern that DQ hijacked to bring the Q- social level about. > The way in which leaves grow extremely logical patterns to enable the > absorption of energy and transfer of water, is this the intelligence > you are talking about.? Not really, the plants are "biology" but surely not intelligent life, rather what I say above about "sensing biological values, what's good and bad for them" and this driving evolution in much the same way as Darwin's theory predicts. > The way in which the neurons of the human brain interconnect to form > patterns in response to the environment and enable communication > between individuals for common purposes, is this the intelligence.? Above I hinted to the evolution of biological brain ending with the human neocortex layer .. and also that increased intelligence was a result, not what spurred evolution on. Pirsig says the MOQ unites Evolution and Creation, study that chapter. > Is the intelligence of a society somehow different from the > intelligence of a herd of wildebeest on the Tanzanian plains?? Don't > think so. This is also a splendid question. As the MOQ postulates - every level builds on the lower levels, thus when the social one established itself it adapted biological intelligence (used for mere survival at that level. The wildebeest on the Tanzanian plain) for its own social purposes. When intellect established itself on top of "society" IT in turn adapted the originally biological "thinking facility" - intelligence - for its purpose. And the MOQ will also employ it for ITS purpose. Hope you will rethink. > Human intelligence is nothing compared to the intelligence of the > subatomic world in its ability to create, nothing in comparison to the > ever evolving cosmology of the universe. Don't get fooled by what you > call human intelligence.? It is governed by very subtle fluctuations of > ions in the brain. Totally out of your control. Perhaps a class in > neurobiology will bring you down to this earth. Well, I use my intelligence (think) along MOQ's patterns. It just postulates that the subatomic and superatomic world is the "static inorganic level" it does not contest its ability to bring about the most awesome complexity, yet is the first/lowest on the static ladder. I you think that all is sub-atomic fluctuations you subscribe to SOM's materialist branch. Be my guest > All these levels of increasing self-importance.? All that I hear is the > Ego.? Perhaps a class in Freudian psychology will put you at ease. Then > again, it's good to think that somehow you are better than a rock, if > that is what you need to give purpose. Ditto, if you don't buy the MOQ and think me a pompous ass, fine, but what are you doing here? Bodvar 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/
