Bo,
BO:I think it was
>Erin who - as the umpteenth person at this discussion - pointed to the
>impossibility of defining intellect, and my interpretation is an attempt at
>a definition.
ERIN: No, I said no one has agreed about what constitutes the intellectual
level --thus there is no agreed upon definiton.
Bo said:
The "ordinary" understanding of the MOQ is that its intellectual level is
the realm of ideas, and consequently that SOM & MOQ are intellectual
patterns. This (ordinary understanding) however makes everything
intellectual patterns for what is NOT ideas - just in our minds, and we
are back in SOM's mind/matter quagmire.
Erin: The MOQ is Pirsig's model. If SOLAQI is based on what the ordinary
understanding of the intellectual level is and not Pirsig's then that just
doesn't seem right.
DMB says:
Yea, we can have thoughts about what is "out there". This creates no
problems. Its only natural because the higher levels include the lower ones.
We need no radical measure to get out of it. We don't want to get out of it.
We want to be totally embedded in it. The MOQ itself even includes SOM, but
also transcends it. It does not eject SOM completely out into space, it
embedds it into a larger system. It explains how mind and matter are
connected in, again, a matter of fact evolutionary relationship.
ERIN: I completely agree with this. I thought at first SOLAQI might be an
attempt to show how MOQ embeds SOM which I thought is good but if it was a way
to dissmiss SOM as the intellectual level then I didn't like it.
Pirsig's next sentence:
> > Also the
> > term "quality" as used in the MOQ would be excluded from the
> > intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives intellectual meaning
> > to the term quality, would also have to be excluded from the
> > intellectual level.
About which Bo said:
Here is the very crux: He says that the Quality idea (the MOQ) can't be
a true intellectual pattern!
DMB says:
No. He's saying that IF your SOLAQI were true, then the MOQ would have to be
excluded from the intellectual level. This is exactly the problem with
SOLAQI. It doesn't solve any problems. It only creates problems, big
problems, such as the need for a fifth level.
ERIN: That was kind of silly. Pirsig disagrees with your idea and you
interpret it as proof. I agree that statement was directed about SOLAQI
definition of the intellectual and why it didn't completely work, not how it
was right!
Bo said:
RIGHT! And the new Pirsig annotation shows that he sees this
fuzziness.
DMB says:
I have no problem with the idea of such a boundary between levels, but the
problem with putting the MOQ at the boundary between the 4th and 5th levels
is simply that there is NO FIFTH LEVEL in the MOQ.
ERIN: I would say that SOLAQI is an intellectual level overlaid with 3rd level
values. MOQ's intellectual level is an intellectual level influenced by
dynamic quality which may result in a fifth level, time will tell.
Right now it still a wilderness and who knows if it will turn into a garden.
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 - 16:02:16 BST