Marsha to Andre: Thanks Andre.
Andre: Marsha, this is at the end of your post. I can take it to mean that this is now finished for you? Could be, but please let me indulge as I am learning from this exchange with you. Marsha: I have not fully understood Bo's SOL to endorse it. I agree with Bo that the Intellectual patterns are based on SOM both East and West for the reasons I previously explained, and I think there is a Quality level emerging. I tend to think of the fourth level as intellectual static patterns of value rather than intellect; it's less confusing. Andre: As far as I understand Bodvar's SOL it simply excludes (by its own Western definition and the way Bodvar argues about it) values. The beauty of the MOQ is that it adds a sense of intellectual quality, an aesthetic appreciation of beauty, an elegant theory (the intellectual 'attitude/appreciation' I spoke of in a recent, previous post with regards to this Dutch mathematician and Buddhist priest). The MoQ already adds this 'affective' pre-conceptual domain through which 'intellect' is guided and influenced. Again both James, Pirsig and certainly Eastern philosophy take this domain for granted as it is part and parcel of pure experience of the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. One doesn't need a meta-level (as Bodvar recently argued for). One doesn't need a 'super' rationality. One doesn't need a new Q- level. It is already here and the SOL is just a hinderance and the arguments in favour a strawperson! Point is we are (culturally) conditioned not to see or appreciate this value. That doesn't mean it is not there. We need to be sensitized. Both James and Pirsig have shown us that. No wonder the 'East' wondered what the fuss was about re ZMM. They know all that stuff already. Anyway, thank you too Marsha. 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
