At 04:04 AM 2/9/2007, you wrote: >Marsha and All > >8 Feb. you spoke:: > > > A while back I was trying to explain that I thought interpreting the > > Social & Intellectual Levels was so confusing because we are immersed > > in them. Here is a far better description of what I was trying to > > explain, but pertaining to art. > >Agree, with doubts about the social level - at least regarding this >forum. We are totally immersed in intellect's value and that is >what hinders an understanding of what intellect's role is in the >MOQ ... and thereby what the MOQ is. This is the reason behind >my SOL interpretation that posits the MOQ as a meta-level from >where the levels and their purpose is seen, not least that intellect >is the value of the S/O distinction (no small thing though) and not >a super-"container" that contains that which is supposed to >contain intellect. Pirsig's assertion that the MOQ is an intellectual >pattern isn't very helpful, but inputs like yours shows that bulbs >are beginning to light up above some heads. > >IMO > >Bo
Greetings Bo, Bulbs beginning to light up? Seems to me I'm coming undone. I've been pacing like a panther for weeks. It seems to me the MOQ belongs in the Intellectual Level. It's an intellectual theory. If one wants the Sage's actual experience, the metaview, then the climb is required. I've been in solitude for the past 5 years hoping for a path to appear, but I am as dense as the next person, so I just get tangled in my own thinking. And actually, after five years, I'm quite sick of myself too. I am trying. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
