Hi Mark 12 Dec. u wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. Now I see what you are describing "the > subject that observes the objective world". OK, I'm with you. This > has been called a number of things, I prefer the term Atman. You are not with me at all, the subject/object distinction is SOM, not any "Atman". I asked if you are have read any of Pirsig's works, you didn't answer something I take as a "no" and it shows. > Yes, the subject, which is outside the brain's logic. The brain is the > ego, in my definition. The Ego is the hardware through which the > subject experiences the objective world, the brain is also part of the > objective world. Traditionally, "intellect" means something else, but > I'm fine with this clarification, I will read your posts accordingly. The subject isn't merely outside the brain's logic, it's the Subject/Object distinction as reality's fundament which creates a host of paradoxes (=violations of any and all kind of logic) Hadn't it been for this below I would have written you off as a "Ham" case. > My point is that we have lost the descriptive emotional basis for > classifying the world around us. The world has become dead and there > is no animism. As you surely haven't noticed I ascribe an "expression" to each level: Interaction (inorganic) Sensation (biology) Emotion(society) Reason (intellect) Further, what Phaedrus of ZAMM saw as SOM ousting Quality (Aretê) was intellect taking off from its social parent ...on a purpose of its own. You are right that this looks as ourselves having lost touch with "the emotional description of the world" and what the present Social Level focussed culture - the "Semitic" (Jews and Muslims) - fights to maintain. And - if you will open a small crack for the MOQ - the reason that Intellect looks "dead, without animism" is its position as reality itself (its SOM capacity) once its MOQ context - as the S/O distinction - is realized it's a great value, the highest and best level. > I do not believe we are any smarter, we are just going > through a phase. You are right, our brain's computation capacity - AKA intelligence - has not increased since the Homo Sapiens. It's a computer that can be programmed with any program. Originally with biology's "survival" then by society's "our cause" and finally with intellects "objectivity". Now it must be re-programmed with the MOQ's program, but that's not easy. > To claim that a belief in gods is somehow inferior is > expressed most likely because you do not have that feeling. Instead > you have this feeling of Quality, which is not nearly as complex and > filling. I would suggest you do a little thinking about what gods > represent, why they are used, and why we are so much better of now > that we have provided dead nouns to things. Call the sun a ball of > flame we orbit around, or call it a god being carried across the sky > by a chariot. The MOQ claims that "belief in gods" (the social-emotional level) is statically inferior to the intellectual-rational explanation, but puts it all in a greater perspective that shows that each level is a level of the VALUE and the necessary base for the next. Even the intellectual- rational is necessary for the MOQ. > Both are just descriptions, neither right nor wrong. > Living with animism is a much fuller life than with a scientific > explanation. If that is the course of Quality, then Quality would > prefer gods. Not "just descriptions", they are different levels. > Reading or rereading stuff from Joseph Campbell would be a good place > to start. I know Campbell's, it's an excellent presentation of the social - emotional (mythological) level.But I suggest YOU to read Pirsig, its a requirement to be allowed 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/
