Hi to you Mark 15 Dec.
I had said > > On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:28:11 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Can't believe I have described "intellect as that which senses SOM". > > Intellect IS the subject/object distinction .. or aggregate. Full stop. Mark: > Thanks for the response. I will just post an opinion on this small > part above. Again I may have trouble with the poetic way you use > words. I will talk about intellect. In my opinion, the intellect, as > defined by me for MoQ, is the sum total of the minds ability to know. In many places Pirsig uses the term knowledge as synonymous with intellect, but "ability to know" makes me a little uneasy. Stone Age (social level) humans knew to perfection what was necessary for their existence, but this (both dextrous skill and the "how to") knowledge I relegate to intelligence. By knowledge in connection with intellect we mean something grander, the objective, scientific truth as contrasted to the subjective "I just wish - or want - this to be true". Don't start about science's limitations, all this is part of the MOQ's scope . > The way this intellect achieves knowing is through the mechanics of > the brain and the body. So in this way, the intellect is the "soul". Your "intellect" is the intellectual level's "mind" (so often called "intellect") I know this is a bid maddening, but the switch from the 4th. level's subject/object matrix to MOQ's DQ/SQ one must be understood. From there seen the 4th. level is the highest static level, yet its S/O matrix (the mind/body and soul/body are offshoots) is limited. > The brain/body itself has no subject object concept in the same way a > computer doesn't. I think we are on the same page here. My > interpretation goes a little beyond this. Agree, the brain/body is no S/O aggregate and nor is computer and its program and I hope your interpretation and mine meet, because now I would have liked to launch my intelligence idea, and why this must be kept apart from the intellectual LEVEL lest the whole MOQ ends in confusion..However, I'll postpone it due to the below which must be contained. > The intellect is the personal sense of self. It can have a > subject/object view, a Cartesian skeptical view, a solipsistic view. > It can have a nondual view, it can have no view. Sense of self in the sense of being an individual with name and identity different from other people were/is still part of the social level's repertoire, however when Intellect arrived (later in its development really) it let the social "Me/Other" take a turn in it S/O mill and come out at a higher level as a more refined variety; The SUBJECT-SELF that can have all kinds of views. It can't have a subjective view (idealist) or an objective view (materialist) But the S/O view - the SOM - did not occur before Pirsig. > I would describe > Pirsig's Intellect to be Quality itself. Pirsig has an intellectual layer in his constitution, but has reached a meta-layer called MOQ, however, for most people the intellectual layer is the end station - was for all until Pirsig broke intellect's barrier. The MOQ "level" means where everything is Quality so it may be called "Quality itself". > Quality uses the human incarnation as a way to experience the physical > world. For me, then, Quality is the same thing as Atman (for lack of a > better word, and soul has Christian connotations). Now if Quality is > everything in a non-definable manner, then Quality is experiencing > itself. The static levels are "made of" Quality, but are most definable. The biological level had to reach the human stage before this organism formed the social level which had to reach some elevated stage before some advanced social pattern tore loose to form the intellectual level. And THIS had to evolve to the super-intellectual of Robert Pirsig stage before Quality's meta-level could be reached And that's all I can manage, there may be much that could have needed comment. Please don't bring in Ham's Essence Bodvar This would be similar (I believe) to Ham's negation of > Essence. Since the human body appears to limited as an object, there > is no way the brain/body can understand Quality, but the intellect or > mind can. While the mind cannot define Quality, it knows exactly what > it is, because it is exactly what the mind is. Such Such understanding > can be taught from teacher to student, through non-logical means. > This has been achieved through the ages through disciplined study. > Such understanding is much more than just another way of thinking, it > is actually non-thinking with the intellect (as I define it here). > Others use the word Consciousness for this intellect, and in the end > we are all talking about the same thing. Call it the soul, intellect, > Quality, Atman, that which experiences the Ego, the spirit, God, it is > all the same thing at the personal "knowing" level. In our attempts > to define it, we may branch off in subtle semantic distinctions, and > the more we define what we are talking about, the farther away we get > from it. > In my opinion, MoQ has gotten pretty far away from its origin in ZAMM, > and there is now a lot of bullshit traveling around. If we get back > to basics, I believe we can find commonality between MoQ and a variety > of other metaphysical philosophies. This is often my attempt in this > forum. > > Mark > 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/
