-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Stillwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, February 07, 1999 9:47 PM
Subject: MD Re: Zen and DQ and Intellect
>Roger: Thanks very much for your reply. I was getting frustrated and with your
>help, my intuition is getting clearer. I'm nearly MOQed out for the time being
>and will not offer any new subjects until we take a good shot at this. I think
>you say that the intellect relates the levels of experience and creates theories
>which are instruments of change.
>
>If so, doesn't everything we do arise from the intellectual level?
>
>I am comprised of all the levels. I have a body, DNA, am apart of a society,
>ect. Yet, the true me, the me that I know intimately, is only the intellect.
>Specifically, my consciousness and my will to choose is intellect.
>
>Perhaps reality has progressed through the 4 levels. I am begginging to concede
>this. Still, I -- Robert Stillwell -- can only alter reality (dynamically)
>through my will to choose. Whether I eat a sandwich, write an opera, bury a cat,
>have sex with an intern, it *originates* from the intellect. I perceive reality,
>make sense of it and act. And do not all of us act upon our intellects? You,
>me, Clinton, Hitler? And since the intellect is the highest level, can't the
>MOQ be used as justification by anyone who *thinks* he/she is right???
>
>Our best guide to morality is not thinking about levels. On the X-files tonight,
>"cancer man" said "Every man believes in his own goodness". When examining one's
>own actions, would not everyone think they are acting at the highest level -- the
>intellect? *The choice is clearing the mind so the intellect best can do its
>job!!* That is what Pirisig is missing!
>
>Forgot about levels. With any "ism" the mind is not free. Only a free mind is
>open to dynamic quality! We must work hard at letting go of (which starts with
>nonjudgementally observing) our beliefs, culture, desires, ideals and begin with
>meditation, observation, attention, and sensitivity. When we are sensitive or
>one with reality, duality is gone. When one does what one really loves, there is
>no confusion, no choice to be made. There is love, gumption, spontaneity,
>inspiration, or what have you.
>
>I have not done this in a while, but I have to end with a plug on Krishnamurti.
>His teachings on attention, freedom, sensitivity, and love vs. opposing fears,
>insecurities, traditions, and desires are very relevant here. Most everything I
>am saying comes from him. I can email anyone privately who is interested.
>
>> Tough one, let me try to answer this in a separate thread
>
>I'm eagerly waiting.
>
>Robert Stillwell.
>
>
>
>MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
There has been some talk recently about being able to justify any action you take
intellectually by using Pirsig's philosophy. In other words Bill Clinton could say
that it is alright for himself to have an affair with an intern by using the
intellectual level of MoQ. However, I think there is some confusion about what
constitutes intellectual values. Obviously the act that Clinton engaged in was
Biological, not intellectual. This is not to say that he could not have rationalized
the act later, but that is not the same as when he first committed the act. What I
think has to be kept in mind is that within these levels of value there is also levels
of value. I know this has not really been addressed, but I hope it is in the future.
In other words someone like Clinton rationalizing having some sexual encounter with an
intern is a LOW form of intellectual quality. The problem I have been encountering is
who or what decides what is a lower form of value within a level. I t!
hink that you just have to weigh the situation to see what has more quality. Having
an affair would have to be a low form of quality because of all the consequences that
could be associated with it. Would there not be more quality in being loyal to your
wife, and not having to possibly be impeached? You have to weigh the issue. However,
in other forms of quality like biological or inorganic obviously this "weighing" the
issue would not be important. In fact, may not be involved at all.
I have come up with an idea for what has more value in a certain level. It is my
opinion that whatever comes closest to the purest form of that level is the most
valuable. In other words what is closest to the intellectual or social or any other
form has the most quality. I struggled with the idea of a social gov. opposing a
society of people. It just didn't seem right to me that a gov. which oppresses the
people could be just as moral as the people. After all isn't the gov. supposed to
serve the people? Well in my opinion a gov. is a lower form of quality than a social
grouping of people. Why is this? Well it's because the people are what make up these
social patterns and can therefore be called a truer or a more purer form of quality.
And not to be left out, is the point that quality is really the deciding factor even
within the levels. Just like the Clinton thing--
(trying to rationalize an immoral act with intellectual qualities. It is still
immoral and won't work.)
The act is immoral intellectually and biologically because of the possible
consequences and its lower form of quality than other choices.
Anyway I may be way off base, but was trying to clarify some of the discussion about
using Pirsig's philosophy to justify anything.
>
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
