Thanks Bo, I like you too. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:03 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi John > > You posts get sloppier and sloppier not even bothering with who you > are addressing, but otherwise you are a nice fellow.. > > I'm addressing words on a screen and even if you author the words, or somebody else does, I'm not communicating my resonse to just the author of the words, but to all. Usually for short responses, I don't see the need for pointing. Pirsig says that Q-intellect is conspiciously absent, NOT wisdom or > deep thoughts, when will you understand that Q-intellect has nothing to > do with thinking in general - deep or shallow - but the OBJECTIVE > approach that will find Job's "dialogue with God a mental case. > > Heavy sigh> You REALLY don't know what you're talking about. There is no dialog between God and Job. There is first a dialog btween God and Satan. Then there is dialog between Job and his three best friends. Finally there is a commentary by Elihu, a young man standing by and serving the others who speaks up when "the words of Job are ended" (cessation of intellectual analysis) and then enlightenment hits Job like a whirlwind of thought as a realization of Elihu's word. It is the interplay of ideas and argument between Job and his friends that is intellectual, by which I mean contemplative of life's objective meaning, which is how I define intellect. > > SOM is objectivism is intellect. If you're gonna call the level > > "intellectual", then you're basically calling it "objectivist" because > > that's what intellect is and does, by definition. It thinks about > > objects. It objectifies reality. That's just intellect > > A bit cryptic this. "SOM is objectivism is intellect" is that John > paraphrasing Bo? ...."It objectifies reality" Is that John's own opinion? It is my opinion. But not original to me. I got it from Ron. But really Bo, who cares where ideas come from? All we should care about is whether ideas are true. Its obvious that the meaning of intellect is objectification. That's just semantics. I'm sorry to say tho that the rest of your diatribe is over (or maybe under) my head. I'd ask you to clear it up for me, but I have feeling you wouldn't. Thanks for visiting, John If > so you are right, yet, these objective vs subjective variants is a very > late aspect of the 4th level which emerged as (SOM's emergence is) > told in ZAMM as the search for a deeper reality than the (above) "god- > ruled reality". And the rest is history, intellect gathered momentum by > the centuries (a break in the Medieval Times) and from Renaissance > and Enlightenment on it "won the West". The old God-ruled reality had > to accept its more humble role as "religion" i.e. a mere subjective faith. > > Well that's all for K-class today, you can have a break. > > 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/
