OK, this is Bo's answer.
B. Skutvik wrote:
>
> Denis
> To start with the end where you wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the personal elements in this, I understand the rhetorical
> > difficulties of attacking something that one might find emotionally
> > charged, but don't worry, I can be a cold unemotional objective
> > bastard when the mood strikes me, so don't feel restrained in your
> > answer, I won't feel offended. Really. ;)
>
> I appreciate your personal touch very much and your writing style in
> general.
>
> About the emotion/society issue it seems like you don't buy it
> completely or even partly, so I guess it's no use harping on it (I
> better do some rethinking myself) but if you allow I'll dwell a
> little more on the SOLAQI idea. You wrote:
>
> > This idea has in fact many interesting points, but I wonder if you
> > do not push it a tad too far. That we are able to think of
> > ourselves as separates entities seems a good starting point for the
> > rise of reason (but I still think of this term in a vague sense of
> > social/intellectual levels thrown together - SOM mind if you will),
> > but to define REASON (your definition of it - ie. the Intellectual
> > level) as Subject-Object Logic seems, well, a bit too occidental to
> > me. Since S/O logic is a discovery that can be historically and
> > geographically located in Greece, 500 years BC, it would mean that
> > basically, other civilizations never had an Intellectual level at
> > all prior to this, and that until the 19th century it was the sole
> > possession of western (and muslim) civilization !
>
> You say (somewhere else): "Inside a level they (there?) are
> scales of evolution." That goes for intellect too. Some people tend to
> equalize it with mental activity or mind of SOM (a dangerous concept
> when transferred into the MOQ) as if someone suddenly
> achieved an ability to think, but I think that's wrong. Cave man did
> speak and possibly formulated complicated theories of origin and
> destiny, but intellect (language) was IN THE SERVICE OF
> SOCIETY, i.e:. the world view was identical to the common myth. I
> can't imagine a latter day atheist or a modern sceptic among them.
>
> What took place in Greek, hundred of thousand years later, was
> the emergence of intellect as a value on its own terms, which started
> to free itself of its social fetters: Its first target the Gods. To
> start pointing to them as myths and fairy tales was to unmask them.
> In the early days they had been taken for granted!
>
> I think this is the way to see intellect's development, else it falls
> victim to your criticism of occidentalism.
>
> You went on:
>
> > I find that a bit hard to swallow. In my opinion, the existence of
> > an oriental philosophy (buddhism, taoism) implies an intellectual
> > level at work, and that, with your interpretation, would mean that
> > there are two kinds of intellectual levels, that didn't grow from
> > the same root. I think we should delve further than that to find the
> > *real* root of the Intellectual level (the machine code, if you
> > will).
>
> Right, but as shown above it's irrelevant and what's more Pirsig's
> claim is that Eastern thought went past intellect long before the
> Europeans came out of the woods and solved the freedom vs duty riddle
> (intellect vs society). By doing so they so to say anticipated the
> Quality idea (not the whole MOQ though) which is: regarded Intellect
> as another evolutionary level, not as the West does: as reality
> itself.
>
> As you possibly noticed from my last message does the MOQ in the
> SOLAQI form presuppose a movement beyond intellect, something that is
> impossible if intellect is seen as "mind": nothing can go beyond mind.
> EVERYTHING is in the mind (or nothing is if you are a materialist).
> This is what gives me such a kick about the Quality idea, it delivers
> us from the mind/thinking prison.
>
> Your "radiator" experience was quite extraordinary. If you don't mind
> me saying so you remind me of myself as young (my essay at
> the "forum" page). That intellectual "mind" has a great influence on
> the lower levels' "minds" is for sure. The remark about the torturer
> is an apt observation and something that I have used at several
> instances.
>
> PS.
> The "ressentir" information was quite welcome (you should heed
> that). French is a language for doing philosophy that is for sure. My
> mill got a lot of water there ;-).
>
> PPS
> Couldn't you find a way to criticize my last message in the LS
> discussion using your ideas here (put in enough of self and soul
> references so that it passes censorship). These our deliberations
> deserve publication. Don't you think?
>
> PPPS
> My wife and I are leavinig for a two week vacation trip Saturday the
> first.
>
> Till then
> Bo
>
> "Quality isn't IN the eye of the beholder.
> Quality IS the eye of the beholder".
> (Platt Holden)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST