On 14 Aug 2002 at 16:56, Gary Jaron wrote:
> I am waiting for your further response. I'm hoping Bo
> and John will also put in their "two cents". I write
> with conviction in the hope of getting clarity and
> challenging thinking back at me. The give and take of
> the process brings us to clarity of our opinions even
> if not bringing agreement.
Hi Gary ...and Scott!
I dropped out because you tended to treat the MOQ as just some thin
pretext for your own message, and also found that Scott acted a better
advocate. Now, the accusation of "own message" may backfire on this guy,
but I claim that mine is no such because I don't question the levels or want
to reshuffle them or weed out one or more, or that everything is REALLY
"intellectual patterns" or that something called "memes" suddenly appears
or ...or ...the countless modification that people have suggested.
> My assertion of mind=4th level is based on a brief 1
> hour effort to see if I could find language by Pirsig
> that defines the 4th level.
That - what we call - mind is equated with intellectual patterns is Pirsig's
definition of MIND, but his definition of Intellect ...? Well, I believe it's that of
a "realm of ideas", a definition that comes close to "thinking" something that
would leave mankind before the development described in ZAMM without
mental capacity. Yet, maybe I am in a rut of my own here, I know that Pirsig
connects Jaynes' bicameral idea to the development of the intellectual level.
That the social reality (when THAT was top notch) was one where "thinking"
and "voices in the head" was one and the same ...and that's correct:
thinking is silent language.
This (silencing of language) would be intellect's conception (still in the social
womb "..in the service of its parent") but slowly this "cuckoo" took over and
kicked its social siblings out of the nest. By its rules of grammar and syntax
it seemed able to create a reality of it's own ...it DID create one .... and the
rest is history. This view justifies both Pirsig's "realm of ideas" definition and
my own that the full-fledged intellect is the subject/object divide, because
when this level took over in earnest it's first task was to the severe its
umbilical cord. Social value became the despised "subjectivity" while itself
was objectivity (which is another name for reality) while we from the Q point
of view sees intellect as S/OM.
> My investigation was not
> definitive but was illuminating. Hence my tentative
> assertion of a conclusion. It does make sense to me.
OK, but "mind=4th" raises the issue of how SOM is to be integrated into the
MOQ. Pirsig says that the two lower may be considered "objects" and the
two upper "subjects", but if mind (of SOM) is the 4th level, what about the
3rd one? Isn't that supposed to be mind too? How do you see that? If the
first makes sense to you the second must also be considered.
What does Scott "think"?
Bo
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:19 BST