Hi Mark. 10 Dec.:
I had said: > > You are a well-meaning guy, but your take of the MOQ is off mark. Your > > "intellect" sounds more like SOM's mind which (by SOM's definition) > > contains incomplete shadows of an infinite complex reality "out > > there". This tendency to pull the MOQ back into the SOM takes two main > > forms. You represent the usual of a "vast flux" = DQ, and "intellect" > > the static filter that distributes it into inorganic, biological ... > > etc. Thus all levels are really "intellectual". e.g. in our minds. Mark: > OK, I'll bite, what is your definition of intellect? Does it not have > something to do with the way we think/reason. I am perfectly happy to > understand another meaning for intellect, and perhaps then I can figure > our what you are talking about. MOQ's "intellect" is a static level, the highest, that "reprogrammed" our "computer" (thinking capacity=intelligence) after the 3rd. level had had it at its disposal for hundred of thousand of years. The hardest thing is to re-program it with MOQ's "software", but if you succeed you will see how the 4th. level (whose program is the S/O distinction) divided existence accordingly and from ITS point of view the term "intellect" means the subject that surveys the objective world. > I am not used to this creation of new definitions for words. Can't we > stick to their usual definitions? If so progress is impossible. Look at it this way. When the 4th. level reprogrammed intelligence it meant a re-definition of words. "Reality" for ancient people meant the gods' realm, while intellect wanted it to mean the inert, objective reality run by eternal natural laws that no "god" could violate. The latter is now self-evident, but once it was heresy. > What is another phrase that you would use for inorganic patterns? The phrases - language - need not be changed, just given a new meaning. > For that matter, what is another word that you would use for Quality. Again, it's the MEANING. In the SOM (at the intellectual level before it became knows as such) quality - value - morals - what's good, was a a s subjective secondhand something, not existing "out there". In the MOQ it's existence's very ground. > A good understanding of a subject is shown by the ability to explain > terms by analogous terms. Hope my analogies work. > If you are using the term "inorganic patterns of Quality" to denote > that which has not entered yet into the intellectual realm, then you > cannot describe it that way, because that is an intellectual > description. Now, you lapse back into intellect as the arbiter of what the observed data really are. While mankind was at the social level the observed data were seen as expressions of the god-run reality. There were no inorganic, or organic, social or intellectual . > A pattern is made by the brain. A pattern does not exist > until it is created, kind of like beauty. You may be getting a bit > over your head here. Phew! Back to square one. This is SOM's monster paradox. Seemingly nothing exists before it is recognized by the brain-made mind. Everything is mind. (idealism) On the other hand the brain is a material phenomenon so from that p.o.v. everything is matter. This is what the MOQ is the solution of. Haven't you read Pirsig's books? . > I do not mean the human mind, because that is Quality. Using "quality=mind" is useless. > I mean the > human brain through which the mind experiences this world. You seem as dead sure of intellect's "the subject that observes objective reality" as ancient (social level) people were of everything caused by gods. Can't you understand that to reach the MOQ requires a new understanding , not ruminating the SOM cud.? > This is > something akin to negation of Essense. I can understand that you may be > using scientific terms without understanding their meaning. Pirsig > himself did not understand the meaning of Evolution since he uses it to > mean growth. If Quality is evolving, then there must be an outside > pressure causing this, by definition. If Quality is dictating > evolution, then it is no different than Nature. This is what you get from "learning" about the MOQ from the nit-wits that treats it as some NewAgeish "be good" gospel. Even Pirsig is not always easy to follow. > Irony? If you think that somehow what you are describing is outside the > human brain, good luck! Back to SOM's monster-paradox. You sound like a science adherer, but science does not vouch for the "everything inside the human brain" view. They postulate a world "out there" independent of brain, one that existed before brain... no? > Yes metaphysics is a product of the human brain, > by definition. If there is another place this can come from, I would be > most interested in knowing it. The MOQ relegates these quandaries as a product of the intellectual level (in its SOM role). There is no "solution" from SOM's premises. > You may have some understanding of MoQ, but it doesn't seem to come > through in your posts. What I hear are terms and words that are > parroted without any real substance. My opinion of course. When the early "intellectuals" (the Greek thinkers) tried to convey their view of a reality that made the old social - god-run - reality into something secondary, they surely were accused of "words without substance (meaning)" Not easy to be a pioneer. However, you seem genuinely interested. 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/
