Denis and John B. and Group
You wrote:
> As for you Bo, I think I finally understand the root of our
> disagreement about Society, Intellect and the frontiers of both. That,
> I believe, came from seeing Pirsig's work from another angle. Thanks
> again to Wilber for that.
Denis.
The last days I have been pondering your post ...not by sitting like
Rodin's "Thinker", but when driving my car (a great place for such)
and while sleeping (not at the wheel though :-)
Your effort to reconcile our two views is impressive and it sounds
ungrateful to go so lightly over it, but the disagreement isn't merely
confined to the emergence of Q-intellect. When you start to define
consciousness something new reveal itself. At first you connect it
to brains (what creature haven't got a knot of nerves that may be
called a brain?) but this - coupled with language - shifts into
SOM's mind-out-of-(biological)matter notion: The realm where
EVERYTHING is if you are an idealist ....or isn't if you are a
materialist, but that is only for the densest :-).
OK, you seem to buy my Q-intellect=S/O, but it's all made nil and
void by the above development. And then being "seduced" by John
B's Wilber references :-)! The question for you both follow at the
end.
..........................
John B.
I have also read your essay "Understanding Quality". A fine
metaphysical piece (as Buckminster Fuller said about Sidis' work)
academically correct with the prescribed pros and cons. I won't go
into an point for point analysis and give you the chance to zoom in
on some insignificant part and start your smoke-screen. :-)
I will just put these questions to you and Denis: Granted your
respective views (Denis's all-containing "consciousness" and your
all-embracing "intellect" (or 'words' or 'thinking' or whatever you
chose to call this realm where theorizing takes place) WHAT IS
OUTSIDE IT???????
My opinion is that nothing whatsoever is. It's no use to refer to a
"terrain" because it is as much part of the theory as the "map".
And to yelp about a DQ is even sillier because it is part of the
MoQ, and any "mystical" foggy thing is completely nonsense
because it is also conceived by thinking ...IF ONE ACCEPTS THE
THINKING VS REALITY PREMISE that is.
Don't you both see that this is the age old SOM-atic split you
peddle here. The fact that you both lean to the idealist view doesn't
help much. Can't you at least try to understand my insistence upon
a metaphysics as a world unto itself. There in no "Pirsig's idea may
have some good points....and this and that writer says much the
same ..etc". (No one does!).
Once one has accepted the fist postulate that everything is Value,
and that the split is D/S, one has left SOM and its S/O split (along
with its many offspring: words/reality f.ex). One may, like Struan
Hellier - be blunt and honest and say that this initial claim is
nonsense, but to bring SOM argument against the MoQ after some
quality yelping ...well words fail me :-)
Bo
PS Please no from-the-hip replay, take your time and consider.
The retort that this is words also won't help. Metaphysics are
worlds unto themselves. MoQ's intellectual level is not SOM's
"intellect" where thinking takes place, not "conscisousness" where
everything takes place, not "awareness" where humans solely
reigns, not even "words" where everything is confined ...etc etc.
MoQ is the top level of itself and its intellectual level is the SOM -
not just its "S" but the very S/O aggeregate.
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 - 16:01:28 BST