Hi Bo:
A series of quick questions for you to consider, engendered by these
two passages from your post of 15 Aug:
> D'accord! Also, in ZAMM P. says that we tend to forget the
> enormous time span between the last caveman and the first Greek
> philosopher. Tens of thousand of years when prehistoric man both
> spoke and figured out complicated theories of origin and
> destination. But there was none who said: "Is this objectively true
> or just a subjective myth". The last is Q-Intellect - not language as
> such - and the final showdown was the Age of Enlightenment
> (Science vs Church).
> Precisely! Yet no level "recognize" any development above itself.
> Intellect will be S/O for ever, and resist any deviation. Isn't that
> exactly what we watch at this forum: Intellect trying to make the
> MoQ toe its line? Intellect (Reason) is the highest good, but not the
> end of the line. We won't become irrational if transcending it, no
> more than we can become disembodied or asocial.
My question is: As a general principle would be correct to state that
whatever we recognize and give a name to, such as "subject" and
"object," can only be accomplished from a level higher than what is
recognized and named?
In other words, is it correct to assume that the existence of a meta-
intellect is necessary in order for us to recognize and discuss Q-
intellect (reason)?
If so, doesn't this suggest that we are already capable of operating at a
higher level than SOM and do so whenever we intellectualize about
intellect?
The reason I ask is a growing supicion on my part that we Pirsigians
may already be on a higher level than the Intellectual. Or, perhaps
more likely, my ego has expanded to encompass an even larger
sphere than usual.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST