From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 19:37:40 BST
Scott: In our thinking we are not responding to DQ. We are participating in
the
DQ/SQ polarity. That makes a huge difference in how we think about
ourselves.
DM: I agree. This is not explicit in Pirsig but it is there as soon
as you ask what is a human being in MOQ? Answer: 4 levels
of SQ, full of patterns, but evolving which implies DQ. And for
a creative human being a laying down of SQ. False consciousness
is to think of your self in terms of only SQ or DQ and to be
blind to the polarity.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
> David M,
>
> Well, I would agree that Pirsig's purpose is to keep things relatively
> simple, and that is a good purpose to have. The problem is that the way he
> did it reinforces some common prejudices that prevent one from going
> forward. The constant denigration of intellect, first and foremost by
> calling DQ pre-intellectual, and repeated in the absurd notion that
> intellect somehow detracts from "pure experience", amounts to a
> self-contradiction. The intellectual level is supposed to be the fourth
> and, to date, highest level of SQ. Yet evidently any experience *except*
> intellectual experience is pure, and intellectual experience is impure.
> Vegetables have pure, non-intellectual experience. Is that better than to
> think about things?
>
> Look at how many people in this forum think of intellect as all and only a
> matter of "dry abstractions". It doesn't seem to occur to them that an
> abstraction comes about through a dynamic process, and that that process
is
> a mystery worth contemplating. The view that Zen is about going "beyond
> intellect", of course depends on the way one uses the word 'intellect'.
> Pirsig has chosen a way that leaves out what is interesting and creative
> about intellect. So in the MOQ there is no way to talk about its essential
> creativity. All one can say is that one can "respond to DQ". That turns DQ
> into an idol to be worshipped. Pirsig's choice on the use of the word
> 'intellect' also makes some of the most profound mystics unintelligible.
> Look at DMB's interpretation of Plotinus, for example (well, Borchert's
> that DMB quotes with approval). The connection between our intellect and
> Plotinus' first emanation has been severed. Without that connection,
> Plotinus' significance has been trashed.
>
> In our thinking we are not responding to DQ. We are participating in the
> DQ/SQ polarity. That makes a huge difference in how we think about
> ourselves.
>
> - Scott
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: David Morey <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Cc: David MOREY <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> > Date: 9/27/2004 2:51:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
> >
> > Hi Scott
> >
> > I care alot actually. I entirely see your case, given the below
> > I think you also see Pirsig's. As you seem to realise
> > Pirsig realises that once you start to talk about
> > intellect the whole question of levels, particulars,
> > & universals come into play. I agree that to understand
> > both cosmic evolution and the creation of levels you need
> > to think about intellect too, as well as patterns, values, dynamic
> > change, etc. But to me it is quite clear that Pirsig wants to
> > keep it simple for as wide an audience as possible. Hence
> > he sticks to the single term of quality that beautifully contrasts
> > to quantity and its association with pure SOM. His first
> > task is to defeat dualism, to underline the importance of
> > underlying unity/holism. As you say below at bottom there
> > is an undifferentiated unity where intellect has not emerged,
> > or anything else, pure Nothing. Pirsig then wants to describe
> > the levels of SQ and he makes the 4th the intellectual level.
> > This is fair and clear enough, where the SQ products/patterns
> > on the 4th level are intellectual. I would not argue with this in as far
> > as it goes. Now what you are doing is unpacking the relationship
> > between SQ and DQ across all the levels. If you do this, and yes
> > it goes deeper, something Pirsig chooses not to do for good reason,
> > you would be right to say that at level 1 there must be intellect of
type
> 1
> > that is active and valuing and using some sort of universal
> > as a comparison/standard. And so on to the 4th level where
> > we have 4th level intellect at its dynamic work. Holistically, we might
> like
> > to say, as you do, that there is something in common between the sort
> > of intellect operating at all 4 levels, i.e. a cosmic intellect. That I
> > agree
> > with. Perhaps I am just not argumentative. I am happy to use the term
> > cosmic intellect in your sense, but also 4th level intellect in Pirsig's
> > sense although he really restricts it, generally, to 4th level
> intellectual
> > products or SQ patterns as that is what he wishes to explain
> > -in terms of levels containing patterns. I think Pirsig does this to
keep
> it
> > simple.
> > Perhaps we can adopt cosmic intellect and level 1(or 2 or 3 or 4)
> intellect
> > to
> > explain what we mean. I have no objection to cosmic intellect,
> > but not sure about DMB? Pirsig's approach does at least stop
> > us thinking that electrons or DNA or plants or animals have ideas
> > in exactly the same way humans do, but I also think that there would
> > be something in common about the capacity of values, and therefore
> > judgement, to occur on all these levels. The danger with Scott's
approach
> > is that it can start to look like SOM again (exactly what DMB starts to
> > do with Scott's idea, i.e. asking is it SOM again) if you have not
already
> > clearly shut out SOM as I accept Scott has. It has to be clear that our
> > holistic
> > metaphysics contains no aspects that are falling towards the poles
> > of only mind-like or only matter-like. In MOQ everything has quality,
> > value, causal reality. As for choice? Well where there is awareness
there
> > is choice and vice-versa. But where there is deep and old SQ, well
> > maybe things get a bit dim and sleepy, and the same again occurs with
> little
> > deliberation (i.e. intellect).
> >
> > Thanks both, good discussion.
> >
> > David M
> >
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Sep 28 2004 - 20:15:14 BST