Hi Mark Feb. 14 you wrote
> Ah, Bo, it must be lonely at the top, just you and Krimel. Krimel! How come? > You don't even know what the intellectual Q-level means. So before you > begin using such high minded concepts I suggest you start again. I've been forced to use the "Q-intellect" term because so many apply the term "intellect" on everything from apes finding ways to crack open nuts, Stone Age people making flint tools, to the correct interpretation, namely "distinguishing between objective and subjective" - AKA Reason. This I've called "the Intelligence-intellect fallacy" and it has haunted the MOQ since LILA was published. > You base so much on history which demonstrates that you have no idea. > Sure you have lots of airy-fairy ideas of something grand, but what is > it? I understand that you are sore due to my style, but having participated in this discussion for as many years as I have and seen the persistent non-understanding of the only interpretation that makes the MOQ revolutionary - the so-called SOL - you become a little callous. > Oh, don't ask me to read Pirsig, that kind of deflection is too > transparent. No, Pirsig is far too ambiguous to glean any clear understanding from, so that I won't do. > Why don't you explain it to me in three simple logical > statements without resorting to changing word definitions into some > cultish MoQ speak. 1) Snap out of the S/O Metaphysics, i.e.the notion that the fundamental split is between subject and object and all its many derivatives, f.ex. mind/matter, mental/corporeal, consciousness/what c. is conscious of. 2) Switch to the understanding that the deepest split is between Dynamic and Static Reality (Quality=Reality) 3) Understand that the former SOM becomes the static intellectual level in the new DQ/SQ metaphysics. If this is mastered you have arrived. > You remind me of witches and warlocks chanting around a fire, summoning > the supreme being Mr. Q. All will be better once he gets here. Bo, > you are like the Masons of old, with secret handshakes and secret > meanings for words. So far the superficiality of your statements are > nothing beyond commandments. Thou shalt receive the Q else-wise burn > in eternal SOM. Ha ha, it is comical in its triviality. Bo, you are > stuck in some little paradigm of Oneness which reminds me of the '60s. > Sure hope you are not paying cash for this education. And, don't bring > in religions and philosophies that you know nothing about. There are > more books than Lila. What I remind you of is just as inconsequential. There sure are more books than ZAMM and LILA, but not if we are to discuss Pirsig's ideas. 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/
