Mary, Ian, All 21 Apr. :
Ian before: > > Nice one Dave, thanks for digging up the references. > > My same answer was kinda in my question "IF we limit ..." > > ie we really shouldn't "limit" - we should see the evolutionary > > dynamic value of allowing the Intellectual level to be more than > > SOM. (even though it appears simple and convenient to think of it as > > SOM) I was hoping Mary (and Bo) might see this point ? > > Ian [Mary Replies] > Digging ever deeper... So, Ian, I gotta ask ya (and DMB and Bo and > all) WHAT is the purpose of the Intellectual Level. If we can agree > that each level is something that has "taken off on a purpose of its > own" and achieved "levelhood" because it wants/desires/values something > different from its parent level, then what is the Intellectual Level > after? What does it really value that's different from the Social > Level? Don't pop off an answer too quickly, you guys. Think about > this. I am... still. This is it! Spot on! Bull's eye!! The intellectual level is static and its purpose is taming/controlling social value, the latter is sheer evil in the eyes of intellect. The great delusion moqwise is to regard intellect as the dynamic place where ideas are conceived and resides since apes got the "idea" of cracking coconuts open till Pirsig conceived the MOQ. This is good old "mind", and SOM is back .... has never been away really. Bodvar PS DMB's about intellect the most moral is correct, but not so because it's dynamic, all levels have been "dynamic" in the sense of spawning the next level, but after that they went all static, and after intellect-as-SOM spawned the MOQ it's completely static. It is not the thinking compartment so many envisage it as. > > > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:03 AM, david buchanan > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ian said to Mary: > > > I actually agree with this [the MoQ has much greater explanatory > > power when the Intellectual Level is viewed as SOM than when it is > > not I actually agree with this] so I ask you a question. If we limit > > the intellectual level to this kind of intellect ... where in the > > evolutionary levels of the MoQ does your Eastern Mystic view fit? > > > > > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > > > In the MOQ's hierarchy of levels the thing that puts intellect at > > > the > > top and the reason it's considered the most moral level is not just > > because it is more evolved but also more dynamic. It is the most > > open to change and growth and evolution. If we limit the intellect > > to one particular metaphysical framework, we've arbitrarily arrested > > its development. I think its more like a phase in the historical > > development of philosophy and culture. That's how James describes > > it, as a persistent problem through the history of philosophy since > > Descartes, at least. > > > > > > Above the social-intellectual code, there is the > > > intellectual-dynamic > > code. This code of art is about the immorality of suppressing > > intellectual creativity, of being too static with respect to > > science, philosophy or any other intellectual activity. (Lila, last > > two pages of chapter 29) The formation of a new scientific > > hypothesis is, in this sense, an act of artistic creation. And so is > > a new metaphysics. Again, this morality is not just about what is > > most evolved but also what's most dynamic (because that further > > serves the ongoing process of evolution). > > > > > > And it really does seem that there has been a shift in > > > consciousness > > in the last century or so. You know, across the whole of Western > > culture, not just in philosophy. But this shift certainly show up in > > philosophy too. Even in the material sense, we live in a world > > that's very different from our ancestors' world. Constant change has > > become the norm. Seems like everything is in motion all the time, > > not least of all because there are nearly 7 billion of us now. (We > > should pick a time and all take a world-wide-nap.) And so this shows > > up in process oriented philosophies, dynamic philosophies about > > streams and fluxes and evolutionary moralities. Pirsig and James > > aren't the only ones who've rejected SOM. It's been coming on for a > > while and is fairly common. Hegel, Heidegger, Dewey, to name a few. > > SOM is criticized in textbooks and in journal articles. Really, the > > intellect is not locked into those metaphysical assumptions. > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from > > > your > > inbox. > > > > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMT > > AGL :ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html
