> There has been an ongoing low-level disagreement between you and > Marsha about her "Wooly headed" meanderings into Buddhism. I agree, > though likely not for the same reasons you do. IMHO, these "moon > meanderings" are nice, but are not useful to me. I cannot use any of > Marsha's statements to assist me with solving a computer problem, > getting my son to do his homework, or cooking dinner.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MarshaV Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium Mary, Why did you address this to me? Marsha On Jan 9, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Mary wrote: > Hi Bo, Marsha and all, > > I do not know who Paul Turner is, and I do not know why Pirsig wrote to him, > nor when. Perhaps you can point me to these letters? Based on the snippets > you quote, though, I am disturbed. He appears to be watering down the > original MoQ. I hate to see it. > > I started rereading Lila for the first time in 10 years just the other > night. I am on Page 37 of the Bantam paperback. Yes, I am a slow reader, > and also, my job prevents me from having much free time to do anything. > Someday, someone will invent software that is smart enough to fix itself. > At which time I will no longer have a job. There will be a day when this > happens to most of us. It has already happened to many. Cloud Computing is > bad news for those of us in the computer field. Anyway, so far in the book, > everything is an object lesson in the (not yet revealed) definition of the > Social level. A good place to start. > > Early on, Pirsig mentions that he considered naming the MoQ the "Metaphysics > of Value". I kind of wish he had stuck with that, at least as far as it > relates to the levels. IMHO, the difference between the levels lie not in > their mechanical differences, but in what they _value_. Why is it so hard > for many to see that the Intellectual level has _nothing_ to do with IQ, > thinking, or thinking about thinking? That set of patterns has been there > to one degree or another from the very start. To argue with me about this > requires you to convince me that the people who wrote the old testament were > of a different species. There is plenty of "intellect" in the Biological > level. There is plenty of "intellect" in computer systems today too. Are > computers operating on the Intellectual level? > > As I see it the S/O split has existed from time immemorial. My dog > understands that she is different from the dog food she is eating, and me - > who scratches her behind her ears. No, she does not recognize herself in a > mirror, but you gotta remember that dogs "see" the world mainly in terms of > scent. They only see in black, white, and red (handy to see blood if you > are a carnivore, I think). When she looks at herself in the mirror, there > are no smells coming back to her. Same if I show her a picture of a dog. > In her world these things have no value, because they do not smell like the > thing they represent. So much of science is homo-centric. The mirror test > somebody mentioned is a prime example. IMO, this is pseudo-science, ripe > for starting a religion around, as all pseudo-science is. > > The S/O split did not start with Aristotle. He was an individual with a > name, among a group of other individuals with names. Any situation where > naming is involved indicates that the S/O split is long entrenched. > Wouldn't you agree? The S/O split began in the Biological level, serves an > essential purpose, and is a very necessary pattern of value if you want to > get through the day. It works. If I am one with the Universe (i.e., the > Universe is me and I am it), why not try to position my car in the exact > same location in space and time as your car? I believe this is otherwise > known as a car wreck. > > There has been an ongoing low-level disagreement between you and Marsha > about her "Wooly headed" meanderings into Buddhism. I agree, though likely > not for the same reasons you do. IMHO, these "moon meanderings" are nice, > but are not useful to me. I cannot use any of Marsha's statements to assist > me with solving a computer problem, getting my son to do his homework, or > cooking dinner. > > Mary's definition of the Intellectual Level based on Lila: It is the > pattern of values which hold seeking the truth above all preconceived > notions and strongly held beliefs. It is the pattern of value that takes > the personal ego out of the equation. The Intellectual level values finding > the truth - even if it turns out that you are wrong. > > Best wishes, > Mary > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
