From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Jul 04 2005 - 21:25:13 BST
Dear Joe
Sorry for the delay, I got so occupied with Paul and Matt that
everything was put aside. Now Platt luckily has provided us with a
respite ;-) I also took the liberty to cange the subject.
28 June you wrote:
> IMO a *belief that the inorganic existed all by itself, and then
> -somehow - evolved into the biological, etc.* is a high quality idea.
> I find irreducible mystical experiences, and I have no problem with a
> hierarchy of an inorganic level, an organic level, a social level and
> an intellectual level. Whatever is inorganic in me responds to the
> inorganic level etc. To reason that there is no *many* only *one*
> order of yes and no is unsupported.
OK, you merely cites Scott, but still seem to accept the "belief"
definition of intellect, as if the static hierarchy - yes, the whole
MOQ - is a belief residing at the intellectual level. My standard
question then is: A belief that believes that the MOQ is a bunch
of rubbish, is that a "low quality idea" when it rejects the whole
MOQ including its level system?
Scott believes so, but will surely not admit any low quality with
Barfield. OK enough. About "many orders of yes and no" I don't
know, it sounds as cryptic as the "many truths" statement. In LILA
Pirsig doesn't speak about beliefs, but puts forward a pretty
convincing rational argument for Quality as the groundstuff and
how the Q-evolution has transcended the various static barriers.
There is nothing about this being a belief or half-way "yes" or
maybe "no".
> IMO evolution is cosmic, and individual. Can an individual evolve? I
> answer yes! Whether for an individual or a cosmos there is a medium
> for evolution. The yes and no of the cosmic medium is of a different
> order than the yes and no of the individual medium of evolution. The
> medium of cosmic evolution leads to death for an individual. I am old,
> I am dying.
Is this personal? Anyway I am old ...dying we all are, the young
ones just haven't realized it ;-)
> The medium for individual evolution leads to a different
> kind of life. Death is still apparent, but what is in between maturity
> and death? I realize these are simplistic questions and assertions and
> answers cannot be assertions.
I'm not sure if I get your jargon but will drone on in the hope that
you will get mine. The human race have transcended the
(sensual) biological level, as well as the (emotional) social level
where there is no death, and arrived at the intellectual level,
where reason dominates and reason sees no "reason" for
anything beyond, existence is meaningless - including death.
In the MOQ intellect is a mere static level, not a mind that
harbours beliefs - the MOQ is neither belief nor knowledge -
these are intellect's S/O pattern, but the Quality system itself.
"Death" to you seems to spell "meaninglessness". And that is
what I mean by no death at the biological and social levels. That
animals (our biological component) don't know death is obvious.
At the social level death is "apparent", but in a social context
death is meaningful and therefore "benevolent" ....why the
suicide bombers willingly give their life for the common cause.
Also in a MOQ context "death is apparent", but because the
MOQ is the system of which intellect is just a static level its
meaninlessness is abolished. However, this can only be achieved
by the SOL interpretation; the view that the MOQ is a mere
intellectual belief abolishes the MOQ.
Bo
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 : Mon Jul 04 2005 - 21:54:03 BST