Hi Bo, You may be saying something, but it is very hard to grasp. The claim that by removing the subject-object duality one gets into a level that is Quality is misleading. Also, the fact that the levels do not know each other (at least above) indicates to me that there is no way to comprehend the Intellectual level, which I also believe is false. To claim that the (Q?) intellectual level is outside of human intelligence really makes it impossible to comprehend. I understand the analogy of one unaware level to the next, but such an analogy can really make the Intellectual level almost anything. The levels below may not define the levels above, so how can you define this level you are speaking of? It seems to me that what you are speaking of has nothing to do with intellect. And then you say it is the S/O split (which is what I thought you were trying to dissolve). Granted, we humans may be subjects of the Intellectual leves, but you explain little about what this does.
Perhaps you have had some kind of awaking or an "AHA" moment but sometime it seems like you are just making this up, with the thought that the reasoning is sound, and therefore it must be true. I will post my understanding of the Intellectual Level that is above the biological/social (for what it is worth), and perhaps we can come to some kind of understanding. All the best, Mark On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:27:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: Hi Dave T. 15 Feb.: Bo before > > I use the "Q-intellect" term to "distinguishing between > > objective and subjective" - AKA Reason. > > 1) Snap out of the S/O Metaphysics, i.e.the notion that the > > fundamental split is between subject and object. > But Bo here's the problem. When we boil these two statements down to > their essence we read: > 1. Intellect, human "reason", works solely by distinguishing between > [object]ive and [subject]ive. I'll return to your objection but first: "Works by ....". What a strange way of putting it. Intellect IS the VALUE of distinguishing between what's personal and what is impersonal. In the Nordic Myth thunder & lightning was the result of some angry godhead banging his hammer around, with the coming of the intellectual level this emotional explanation was replaced by the natural explanation. But I affirm: Intellect is the subject/object distinction. > 2. There is no fundamental split between subject and object. I affirm this too. Before the MOQ all levels regarded themselves as fundamental. I know that speaking about the inorganic and biological as "regarding" anything sounds odd, but the idea is that no level knows the level context, to them existence IS themselves. This was the case with the intellectual level as well: There was the objective world "out there" and the subject "in here" that tried to unravel its workings. Please I know all the nuances and objections better than any, but this is its essence. > So what you are claiming is humans reason past, present, and future is > based on an fundamental split that does not exist....... Human reason sounds like "intelligence", my contention is that the INTELLECTUAL LEVEL is the S/O split, nothing about human or intelligence please. Well, enter the budding moq that had the fundamentalism of the S/O split as its "target". It was identified and isolated as SOM - a "system" having arrived in historical time and had established itself so fundamentally that no one were able to see beyond it. Then the final MOQ with is new DQ/SQ fundament and the four static levels where SOM is the 4th. One of MOQ's tenets is the non-fundamentalism of the static leves; they are "out of" their parents and when pursued far enough the parent level shows. So right the fundamentalism of the S/O split is dissolved, as is the fundamentalism of the social, biological and inorganic levels too, but those can wait. > So we are forever trapped to use a method that is irrational. You're > starting to convince me. A bit sarcastic, but MOQ point is that the above non-fundamentalism of the static levels - when examined the parent pops up. - is countered by their absolute MORALITY. In LILA Pirsig gives examples of social value popping up in intellectual affairs as - for instance - scientistes tempted to manipulate experiments as to match their theory and bring them fame and fortune, but regardless, if these social values are spotted by intellect's immune system the poor bugger is thrown out of the Church of Reason. This goes for all static VALUE levels, if some traces of the lower value is spotted its immune system strikes it down. The fact that lower level's "virus" can fool the higher systems doe not alter the stict MORALITY of it is all.. You Dave seem to keep your door ajar for the MOQ in contrast to the other Dave who has closed it and works inside the Church of Reason with a corrupted MOQ to secure his fame and fortune. 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/ 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/
