OK, this is Bo's answer. B. Skutvik wrote: > > Denis > To start with the end where you wrote: > > > Sorry for the personal elements in this, I understand the rhetorical > > difficulties of attacking something that one might find emotionally > > charged, but don't worry, I can be a cold unemotional objective > > bastard when the mood strikes me, so don't feel restrained in your > > answer, I won't feel offended. Really. ;) > > I appreciate your personal touch very much and your writing style in > general. > > About the emotion/society issue it seems like you don't buy it > completely or even partly, so I guess it's no use harping on it (I > better do some rethinking myself) but if you allow I'll dwell a > little more on the SOLAQI idea. You wrote: > > > This idea has in fact many interesting points, but I wonder if you > > do not push it a tad too far. That we are able to think of > > ourselves as separates entities seems a good starting point for the > > rise of reason (but I still think of this term in a vague sense of > > social/intellectual levels thrown together - SOM mind if you will), > > but to define REASON (your definition of it - ie. the Intellectual > > level) as Subject-Object Logic seems, well, a bit too occidental to > > me. Since S/O logic is a discovery that can be historically and > > geographically located in Greece, 500 years BC, it would mean that > > basically, other civilizations never had an Intellectual level at > > all prior to this, and that until the 19th century it was the sole > > possession of western (and muslim) civilization ! > > You say (somewhere else): "Inside a level they (there?) are > scales of evolution." That goes for intellect too. Some people tend to > equalize it with mental activity or mind of SOM (a dangerous concept > when transferred into the MOQ) as if someone suddenly > achieved an ability to think, but I think that's wrong. Cave man did > speak and possibly formulated complicated theories of origin and > destiny, but intellect (language) was IN THE SERVICE OF > SOCIETY, i.e:. the world view was identical to the common myth. I > can't imagine a latter day atheist or a modern sceptic among them. > > What took place in Greek, hundred of thousand years later, was > the emergence of intellect as a value on its own terms, which started > to free itself of its social fetters: Its first target the Gods. To > start pointing to them as myths and fairy tales was to unmask them. > In the early days they had been taken for granted! > > I think this is the way to see intellect's development, else it falls > victim to your criticism of occidentalism. > > You went on: > > > I find that a bit hard to swallow. In my opinion, the existence of > > an oriental philosophy (buddhism, taoism) implies an intellectual > > level at work, and that, with your interpretation, would mean that > > there are two kinds of intellectual levels, that didn't grow from > > the same root. I think we should delve further than that to find the > > *real* root of the Intellectual level (the machine code, if you > > will). > > Right, but as shown above it's irrelevant and what's more Pirsig's > claim is that Eastern thought went past intellect long before the > Europeans came out of the woods and solved the freedom vs duty riddle > (intellect vs society). By doing so they so to say anticipated the > Quality idea (not the whole MOQ though) which is: regarded Intellect > as another evolutionary level, not as the West does: as reality > itself. > > As you possibly noticed from my last message does the MOQ in the > SOLAQI form presuppose a movement beyond intellect, something that is > impossible if intellect is seen as "mind": nothing can go beyond mind. > EVERYTHING is in the mind (or nothing is if you are a materialist). > This is what gives me such a kick about the Quality idea, it delivers > us from the mind/thinking prison. > > Your "radiator" experience was quite extraordinary. If you don't mind > me saying so you remind me of myself as young (my essay at > the "forum" page). That intellectual "mind" has a great influence on > the lower levels' "minds" is for sure. The remark about the torturer > is an apt observation and something that I have used at several > instances. > > PS. > The "ressentir" information was quite welcome (you should heed > that). French is a language for doing philosophy that is for sure. My > mill got a lot of water there ;-). > > PPS > Couldn't you find a way to criticize my last message in the LS > discussion using your ideas here (put in enough of self and soul > references so that it passes censorship). These our deliberations > deserve publication. Don't you think? > > PPPS > My wife and I are leavinig for a two week vacation trip Saturday the > first. > > Till then > Bo > > "Quality isn't IN the eye of the beholder. > Quality IS the eye of the beholder". > (Platt Holden) MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
