From: Maggie Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Date: Sat Oct 19 2002 - 12:08:06 BST
On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 04:17 PM, Scott R wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Elizaphanian wrote:
>
>> So my thesis is this: the fourth level needs to be understood as the
>> level
>> of the individual, not the level of the intellectual (the former
>> *contains*
>> the latter as one constituent part) and therefore we need to focus on
>> Sophocles, not Socrates.
>
> As my pet author Barfield would say, it is the intellect that makes
> the individual possible, and as SOLAQI points out, the value of
> q-intellect is the subject/object divide, i.e., the creation of the
> individual. So in a way, calling the fourth level the level of the
> individual or the level of the intellectual amounts to the same thing.
> The advantage of the latter over the former is that it identifies the
> faculty that lets one grow as an individual. If I am to "let DQ into
> my life", then it is the intellect that I employ, as it is what
> enables me to detach from fixed sq, at whatever level.
>
mmm... but, once intellectual patterns (forms of individualism) exist,
they are no longer DQ. They are SQ. To "let DQ into my life," don't
we have to seek a balance by the awareness of ALL the levels?
Or, in other words, isn't DQ more likely to surprise us when we are
"willing to be lucky"?
Or surrender to being empathic/communal ("Let go and let God")"
Or be aware of ourselves as part of nature?
maggie
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:59 GMT