Hello everyone On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:55 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dan: >> >> From LILA: >> >> "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the >> source of all things, completely simple and always new." >> >> Dan comments: >> >> Please note that Robert Pirsig says that Dynamic Quality is >> "pre-intellectual", not intellectual. It is simple and always new >> (just in case John is reading). >> >> >>>Mark: >>> One could say that the electricity going into a TV is somehow more >>> real than the picture coming out, but again I do not see the boundary >>> there. We cannot look back at experience, the act of looking back is >>> experience in itself. It would seem that there is a false boundary >>> between dynamic quality and the intellect. Zen would deny such a >>> boundary. The intellect in operation is part and parcel of DQ. We >>> divide it up into SQ for the purposes of communication and societal >>> needs, but of course that division is artificial and used primarily >>> for imparting awareness, and cohesiveness. >>> >>> I'm not sure who I am agreeing with here, perhaps I have once again >>> gone off on an irrelevant tangent. If so, my apologies. >> >> Dan: >> >> Yes I would agree it is irrelevant in that this has nothing to do with the >> MOQ. >> >> Dan > > [Mark asking for an explanation from Dan] > Yes, I am familiar with the quote from Pirsig concerning the > pre-intellectual. So, let me ask you this: at what point does > something become intellectual? There is firing of the nerves in the > brain which results in the arising of ideas, which are then converted > to words, and then subsequently through Broca's area are converted to > movements of the mouth which result in vocalization. Which part of > that is the intellect? Are the action potentials of the nerve, or the > subsequent release and travel of transmitters across the synaptic gap > considered to be the intellectual? Each time a transmitter reaches a > receptor and causes a post synaptic depolarization it is a new event. > Each time a nerve fires it is a new event. How do you define what is > a new event and one that is not. How can anything in the moment be > anything but a new event? How are you going to differentiate at > which point something is pre- or post- intellectual? This begs a > little bit of definitions from you so that I can understand what you > mean.
Dan: First of all, in reading your questions I question your grasp on the MOQ. Synaptic function is a biological level activity that can be measured. It is physical. Intellect cannot be put under a microscope. It is non-physical. >Mark: > Are we intellectually aware of how our mouths move when we speak? Are > we intellectually aware of how thoughts are forming in our heads? > When we respond without intense thinking, is that intellectual? > Please provide more explanations of how you separate an intellectual > occurrence from any other occurrence. Dan: I presume you think as well as I do. You know the answers to these questions already, Mark. If you wish to know how the MOQ addresses these issues, intellect is the same as thinking, intense or otherwise. >Mark: > In the precise instant that anything happens it is at the cutting > edge. It cannot be otherwise. This is Zen, this is living in the > present. The idea that something we are currently thinking about is > not at the cutting edge but somehow removed, begs some questioning. > So we take Pirsig's quote, and relegate the intellect to something in > the past? Is that what he means? Is he somehow separating that when > we think we are separate from dynamic quality? Wouldn't he be > creating a false divide there? I think you are misinterpreting > Pirsig, I do not think that is what he meant. But I could be wrong. Dan: We are not separate from Dynamic Quality. And yes, intellect is always in the past. Direct experience is always new, always a surprise. Only later does intellect tell us what is what. It is like riding in the back of a pick up truck and watching the world recede. I think Robert Pirsig says as much in the epilogue to a newer ZMM edition. >Mark: > I would argue that by putting Dynamic Quality at the cutting edge of > reality, that is in the present moment, I am staying true to "THE" MoQ > (emphasis from your post). You would argue that the intellect is > somehow removed from immediate reality. I would like to hear you > explain this without resorting to quotes. I am perfectly willing to > be wrong on this, but I need some explanation which goes beyond the > derogatory. By simply quoting something that you possibly do not > understand may be misleading to others, and we have a responsibility > here. I still think that you understand MoQ, so please explain this > part. Dan: Well, first of all, we are here to discuss Robert Pirsig's work, so if my quoting him is a problem, what are you doing here? Of course intellect is removed from direct experience. If you knew a thing about zen practice you would already know that. As far as derogatory, you've done nothing but sling mud my way since you've been here. Why I am even bothering to answer you is beyond me. But I am, so take it or leave it. I really don't care. Dan 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
