Hi Bo,
Most amusing.
I see Norwegians DO have a sense of humour? And a good ones at that!
I assure you i am not out to usurp the captain. You could say i do not wish
to 'skuttle - vic' your ship?
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"!
I feel static descriptions of intellect are the product of a dynamic
intellectual process which is intelligent. (!)
Static descriptions do not HAVE to be SOM - David Bohm's 'rheomode' in his,
'wholeness and the implicate order' book looks into this? I wish to look into
it further meself.
> 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.
EXPANSION. That's my view. I don't wish to sound trite, but you defend more
than engage, and this saddens me. I feel your predilection for addressing
only that which threatens your position and avoiding issues such as Art and
stuff is the result of a possible ego lead value trap mon capitain?
Expansion into ART and less rational methodology.
> 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?
I am not out to debunk you Bo.
I have no interest in damaging your interests if indeed your interests value
status?
Your point about q-intellect requiring society is valid only at this stage of
evolution.
> 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.
The SOM prison is an Arid Art desert. We may drench rationality with a good
Art monsoon and invigorate this wasteland into a luscious pleasant vista of
green once more?
> 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.
It STILL is aesthetically attractive because it emerges from an aesthetic
continuum. Motorbikes are aesthetically pleasing when designed well.
> 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
I am not entirely sure you own anything.
Ownership is all an illusion if you think about it?
The ancient Greek Olympians used wreaths as reward for competition, because
wreaths fade away and the artes of the athlete must be aesthetically created
another day.
Today, the Gold medal is prized for its own sake?
I wonder if your ship's cargo is destined for the dark wine sea...
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 - 16:06:21 BST