From: Monkeys' tail or (elkeaapheefteen@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 15:06:05 BST
Sam,all
a few remarks;
your ideas on the intellectual level as an individual level are appealing, I
too feel very attracted to the idea of the fourth level as the level of the
individual. I pledged for it before and I'm not the only one as you know
this proposal is done different times by different people. It seems all a
question of how far the intellectual level stretches out because it is the
highest level and there is nothing above it like on the lower level. It
seems there is a very thin line between DQ and intpov, what was once
undefinable in social terms is now defined by intellectual patterns of
value. So why shouldn't today's DQ be tomorrow's intpov. I guess that is my
biggest problem with Solaqi(With the reservation that I could not locate a
overall view of Solaqi, just some loose statements, where is Bodvar
anyway?), it freezes the MOQ river into an overabsoluted framework of
subject-object thinking and judging. I would rather allow some none-Sommish
ideas to the intellectual level which also shows the receptiveness of the
intellectual level and make the intellectual level non-individual.
A remark from the mystic side is very important though, it is one of the
main influences of the controversy between intellect and individual IMO.
With my summire knowledge of mysticism and as far as my comprehension goes,
mystics seem often to have case when they say that the whole world is within
you, that we are the world. I think they make a good case and if this is
correct then an individual would stand for much more then intellectual. I
have to admit a little voice inside me says; there is a spoon, there is a
spoon!
On the other side we can view the individual as an abstraction from ego,
from the <self>. But the self is nothing more then CERTAIN patterns chosen
from a world of experiences. The MOQ should make an end to this selective
subject object thinking and by putting an abstraction of <self> on top it
would certainly not do that. But it is done so often and I too plead guilty
of making the MOQ sommish by explaining things in terms of intellectual
ideas of lower patterns.
I have always had the feeling that the intellectual level was the more
mystic level, that there was still a huge area to be explored and that some
people too easily say; oh yeah so and so.....that's DQ, undefinable. I would
subscribe to the intellectual as an individual level and SOLAQI if there was
a fifth level. Otherwise all progression seems to get stuck in a battle
between society and intellect, maybe I am just a dreamer but I hope that one
day the intelectual level will be challenged by something greater, a defined
mystic level of global awareness and responsibility!(empathic
rationality?????)
A few last speculative words;
To get back to my first words, I defined the intellectual level as the level
where one accepts him or herself as a moral authority, Platt added; and
takes full responsibiliy for that. But my doubts concern the issue of how
'detached' or 'semi detached' one is if he or she claims moral individual
authority. It does not say a thing about the decisions he makes, in history
there were a lot of people claiming moral authority but that did not end
very well for them or for the society they lived in. The issue is that the
social level and the intellectual level are very closely related, Pirsig
says the intellectual level has taken it's own path, imo this is partly true
because where the intellectual level takes it's own path imo the
intellectual level was at it's worst as in science. It seems that common
good and individual good are the same and where the intellectual level takes
it's own path, defines it's own good becomes detached from the social level
but also becomes meaningless. I see it all around me, individual authority.
Acceptance becomes indifference and respect turns into hatred for toher
moral authorities. People just no longer care, by letting go of the
constraints of the social level, people absolutize their own authority and I
despise it. The towing down of power from social institutions as church and
state to the individual is going the wrong way. It seems that now people
have escaped their caves, they stand in the bright light and are blinded by
their freedom and running around like headless chickens, no idea where to
go, no idea of what to do. Nowadays integration of foreigners is quite an
issue here in the land of tolerance and tulips. Where it all goes wrong is
that the foreigners are mostly social based, the dutchies are individually
based, the process of socialization has been skipped and just below the
surface the battle takes place, the bombs are ready, the enlightened moral
auhorities are waiting for legitimation of ignition.
But I could be wronger then ever,
davor, who no longer wants to be a moral authority!
PS:(does anyone have an idea why everybody is unsubscribing, Squonk, John,
Bodvar, feel a bit sad, is it me?)
>From: Oldehippie1947@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:44:22 EDT
>
>Sam
>
>I agree with you that Persig wrote Lila with a different focus. When he
>wrote
>ZMM he was frustrated because he knew had had something of value to say but
>was faced with the exclusionary nature of academia. Once he broke through
>that barrier and gained credibility he wrote the first to express his
>viewpoint with his gut whereas Lila was an intellectual approach. IMO It is
>empathic rationality that is the process of thinking Persig was searching
>for
>although he never called it that.
>
>Darrell
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
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 - 10:38:01 GMT