Hi Joe, Fair enough, emotions are not definable except by other emotions. Let me ask you this:
What is the difference between intellect and emotions? What is it about the intellect that allows you to draw a firm line between the two? It would seem that words create a difference for you. In my opinion, words are the societal level impinging itself on the individual level (individual consciousness). Words are meant to share ideas. The ideas themselves occur prior to any words being put to them. We subconsciously translate an idea into words so that we can communicate with others. The ideas themselves exist in an undefinable realm prior to this. To see what I am saying, pay attention to your thoughts. This is termed mindfulness and was practiced by Buddha in order to reach his intuitive apprehension of Quality. (Buddha was also heavily into yoga and other contemporary things). You may find that individual thoughts are much different than you imagine them to be. For many, there seems to be some equation of thoughts with static quality. This can indeed be argued if such thoughts are words as used in the societal level. We must exchange static phrases which have an agreed on meaning. There are, of course, other manifestations of the societal level which are not shared as words. For me, the difference between the societal level and the individual level (which I have accepted to be termed the biological level in MoQ), can be drawn by noting what parts of our consciousness do not require sharing. This can be confusing since often we share with ourselves, and this does not count as the biological level, but again is a manifestation of the societal level. The intellectual level is not individual intellect. Far from it. It is a separate level which many influence our personal intellect. This level is outside of our individual consciousness, and acts as a guide for such a thing. Some similarity can be equated with the Platonic sense of concepts which exist outside of our personal interpretation. But this is of course a subject for another thread. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andre and all, > > Hi Andre and all, > > I have trouble with the third level of Pirsig's model for evolution, the > "Social level". > > The politics in an anthill does not equate to voting for a leader, nor does > selecting a leader by genetics violate voting for a leader. > > I do not have trouble viewing DQ as emotions and intellect as DQ/SQ. > > When I ponder emotions I cannot define a feeling of Joy. More importantly > when I ponder electing a president, politics assures me that my vote is > secret not indefinable. Undefined/defined. DQ comes before SQ. > Politicians know that emotions vote a lot, and loveable adds are necessary. > > In a DQ/SQ metaphysics How can DQ be described? > There is something very individual in a choice before the full definition of > a thought. SQ defined is mechanical, DQ undefined is emotional, > metaphysics. > > I equate emotions with DQ in that they are indefinable and prior to SQ > intellect. The necessity for an awareness in DQ is the perception of > reality and evolution. There has to be sentient understanding, emotion, > before political speaking, intellect. This applies to science as well. > Science is immoral without it, the holocaust. > > > On 4/16/11 9:39 AM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> >> So therefore I ask: 1) do you see emotions as a separate level (within the >> MOQ)? 2) how do you argue that emotions are indefinable? and 3) how can you >> equate emotions with DQ?. > <snip> > > > > 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
