On 20 Aug 2002 at 5:06, SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
> We know. You keep telling us until it hurts.
> Why are you so proud of appropriating a fundamental point made in ZMM
> by Robert Pirsig for yourself and then continually bleating about how
> marvellous you are? Just because YOU have arbitrarily decided to call
> the birth of rationality 'q-intellect' does not mean you wrote the
> rest of ZMM as well!
Hi Fletcher Squonk
I understand that you have lost your faith in me and are now leading a
Bo(unty) mutiny. :-). OK, I may be bleating (for Diana I was blethering), but
the above "fundamental point" is such a strong proof for the SOLAQI
interpretation that I can't understand how it can be overlooked. Why it is
overlooked I understand only too well, and no, I don't want to take credit for
anything - except pointing to the obvious in Pirsig's statements.
> As you know, i feel intelligence was around in abundance before
> rationality was born; i feel rationality is a methodology born of
> intelligence. Protagoras was an intelligent man!
Here you go on again about intelligence as if that is the STATIC intellectual
level. Can't you think for a moment before throwing yourself at the keyboard.
Do that and then return with a description of intellect before it turned S/O
...and remember not "intelligence"!
> Rationality has
> turned this world into a technological shit hole with empty carcasses
> for human beings wondering around like ghosts - except for those
> uneducated and 'uncivilised' types who get fed less of the rational -
> and YOU tell us this is q-intellect and HOW wonderful it was for the
> Tao to have done it all! Oh! But some, 'Integration' with MOQ is
> required, he says putting it arse backwards.
This is fair enough, but Pirsig doesn't want rationality/technology removed,
but all this you are supposed to know.
> If you follow your q-intellect to its conclusion, you may begin to see
> that q-intellect does not require humans? In other words, q-intellect
> as you call it is the launch pad for another level of evolution.
Q-intellect doesn't need humans. I agree with that, but it needs society
which needs biology ...etc. I can well imagine an alien civilization yet it will be
subject to the same evolution. And "...a launch pad for another level of
evolution". Sure it is, aren't you out to debunk me?
> If, on the other hand, we forget your q-intellect and remember that
> rationality is a method used artistically by intelligence, which may
> be modified or expanded to undermine its severe SOM flavour, then
> there may be a chance of moving forward with hope in our hearts and
> optimism in our thoughts and deeds - and not towards the nightmare of
> a q-intellect which YOU feel is more valuable and dehumanising.
Look, biological value was once a "nightmare" that social value was a
liberation from, in turn IT became a nightmare that intellect liberated
existence from. A static level cannot change its innermost value, to say that
the MOQ will "replace" SOM as intellect's value, is like saying that inorganic
value could turn biological. Your "...used artistically by intelligence ...etc" is
valid, but is just another way of describing the dynamics that has driven
existence constantly higher levels ...and is now at work to escape intellect's
SOM prison.
> There is no ART in your ideas.
> Pirsig focuses on an aesthetic because rationality - while aesthetic -
> is only one colour, so to speak, from a larger intelligent pallet.
Once "rationality" was aesthetically attractive to the Greek thinkers.
> You're blocking the light again and colours are looking drab and
> lifeless...
Again, I am impressed that my ideas means so much to you even if now in a
negative sense.
IMO as always.
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 - 16:06:21 BST