SQUONKSTAIL:
> Hi Bo,
> You disappoint me ...etc.
Dear Friend
Quite a broadside! Still, you obviously have some respect for me and believe
that if I understood your way of understanding the MOQ - and were swayed -
it would matter. I thank you for that and also understand perfectly what you
mean about my q-intellect (S/O-intellect) not explaining Shakespeare or
Mozart ....nor does it explain bird-song or how pigeons home and a million
other astounding feats. Mixing intelligence and the static intellectual level
is
the most common pitfall in the MOQ. Besides the postulate of an inorganic
level does not explain the springing into existence of matter, nor does the
biological level explain how life came to be? It's the DYNAMICAL process
which is undefined/unexplained because ANY explanation will be an
objective (versus subjective) explanation. In other words an intellectual one
...MY S/O intellect again justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hold on!
Not so fast.
To suggest that intellect did not appear until the S/O divide came along is
ridiculous.
Trite am i?
I may be trite but i'm not a damn fool.
And if q-intellect cannot be captured in patterns then nothing else can
either.
So, if there is a static description of q-intellect, and that description is
= S/O divide than you are an even bigger fool than even i had imagined.
Where have you been all the time? The rate and depth (read shallow:-) of
your answers indicate not thinking much except hammering at the
keyboard. We have discussed the "intelligence" phenomena up walls and
down poles (as we say), particularly Denis Poisson and David Buchanan
(the intelligent ones having the sense to unsubscribe, only us junkies left
:-)
how there is this astounding display of something that can be compared to
"mind" starting low down in the animal kingdom. Much keener senses than
our human sort is one thing, but showing a mental ability that leaves us
humans in the dust (a radio program in Norway brings stories of animal
behaviour, and it's completely bewildering).
I doubt you would be wanting for bewilderment if you could see Dickens at
work?
A description of that is better left outside S/O division but can be
described in non-SOM terms.
In the SOM there is this notion of biological evolution rising in neural
complexity bringing along a similar rise in mental abilities reaching a
climax
with the mammals and finally leaping into "self-consciousness" (or MIND)
with the human beings, but if the MOQ is supposed to be a good-bye to the
from-matter-into-mind view of things (and if you agree with me about
Wilber's lapse back into that view you should heed that) then the STATIC
intellectual level can't be anything like previous conceived. And it is here
that
I accuse you, Squonk, of not having understood the first thing, but keeps on
about the human achievements in arts as if THAT is q-intellect.
I do not confuse q-intellect with achievements in the arts.
I want to know how art can be explained using q-intellect? Or is art not
intelligent in your view? To refuse to define q-intellect is basically saying
its quality. If you define it you have to use non-SOM terms.
Q-intellect is as said a STATIC value level, thus some definition of it is
needed and nobody except yours sincerely has provided any and I am
conceited enough to be proud of that achievement ...especially as this SO-
intellect seems to explain everything I have directed it at, while the
whatever-
comes-into-one's-mind-intellect gets bogged down in SOM-sand quickly.
Especially when we enter a possible development beyond intellect and
people starts about super-computation and net-works of minds ..etc. shows
that the kind of intellect you propose is impossible to get beyond.
Explain what?
I am sorry, but i don't see it explaining anything except rationality and
Pirsig already did that in ZMM. Dickensian intellect is not rational and it
cannot be explained by q-intellect. If it can then please? Go right ahead? I
am still waiting.
I just can't understand that you see yourself as some heretic or "lone wolf"
at
this site, your view is trite until vomiting, and accusing me of standing in
the
way of a quality growth is grossly mis-directed, but please be my guest ...I
like your hot-headed style and am - as said - pleased that you put my
opinion that high.
>From Bo with love.
I feel you are standing in the way.
I feel you have generated much that is destructive in this site and little to
move the potential of Lila forward.
I know 'The quality event' is an excellent synopsis of someone else's work
but that does not give you the patronising authority to hold court?
I also feel there may be a ground swell of others who feel the same way as I
but cannot speak up. I am not a lone wolf. I just say what others don't want
to say. You may wish to label me as a lone wolf but i have noticed on more
than one occasion that others begin to express themselves after i have broken
the ice. On this issue we will just have to wait and see?
I do respect you but i feel you are over doing it by quite a long stretch.
And be sure of one thing: If i ever find q-intellect beautiful i will be more
than happy to accept it and use it and run the wind with it. As of this
moment i do not know of one individual who finds your q-intellect
aesthetically appealing. I do however know many who find ZMM and Lila
aesthetically very appealing.
You have a duty to make your ideas aesthetically appealing.
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:06:20 BST