Hi Mary, > I too have a problem with all definitions of the Intellectual level I have > heard. For me, it is nothing more than an attitude allowing one to question > the strictures of the Social level, and thus allow for more creative > thinking.
Mati: Ok then there is yet another definition. A definition like this for personal consumption is ok, but this to me is about cracking a code or defining of values. For the most part the code has been crack with MoQ so very well. The question is about cracking the code of intellect. And for me personally MoQ makes perfect sense up to intellect. When I personally approach Pirsig on this matter a number of years ago, he suggest that this was a futile effort. So was the issue of the seemingly futile process of defining Quality after ZAMM was written yet he managed to give us MoQ. Pirsig unfortunately has been a victim of his own success. He has managed to give us so many of the answers to the important questions he has raised. Yet with intellect he has fallen short. Based on face value the s/o split as the basis for intellect seems to defy an inate understanding of who we are, in large part of SOM influence about that understanding.. To be honest it took several years until I was able to totally understand and accept Bo was really saying. >There was plenty of thinking going on before the Greeks, as there > is plenty of it going on in the Social level today (religion and politics). > I have a problem with Bo's definition as the S/O split. To me, this is very > fundamental. Doesn't a dog see itself as separate from its master? The S/O > split is a byproduct of the ego. If I am "I" and you are "you", then we > have an automatic S/O split right there. The only types of brains that > would not see the world this way are those that do not have a personal > consciousness, right? Mati: Yeah I went down this trail and many others to really understand that they are dead ends. You suggest that a dog has consciousness, true. But its consciousness is only biological at best. We teach them tricks, we call their name, we give them hugs and interact with them, we in some cases suggest they are one of the family. Yup the dog see his master, but he doesn't define himself as himself, he just is. He exist and strives to exist to have his needs met and as a social creature to interact with others, but only on a biological level. Though it precieves objects it does not define them, beyond what he can precieve on a biological basis. Respectfully, Mati 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/
