From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Jul 05 2005 - 21:25:55 BST
On Monday 04 July 2:45 PM Bo writes to Joe,
[Bo] 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?
Hi Bo and all,
No I do not accept that the static hierarchy or the MOQ is a belief system.
IMO mystical experience is too easily dismissed as a belief, as the question
is the MOQ a bunch of rubbish indicates.
I want to go back to your June 29 posting.
[Scott] > I don't know what you mean by "subscribe to the "intelligence"
> definition of the intellectual LEVEL", so can't comment on it.
[Bo] I mean the skill that creatures (far down into the biological level)
display that enables them to learn from experience. This prowess
(intelligence called) is faultily defined as intellect.
[Joe] I am unclear how you are distinguishing intelligence from intellect?
Evolution from the inorganic is a movement in DQ. IMO this is a clumsy way
to try to describe evolution. I prefer to describe 'happening', 'event',
'evolution' as a manifestation of three forces, +, -, and 0. The interesting
force 0 is a force that can be neutral to yes or no and sustain them in a
yes and no manifestation-evolution. Intelligence and intellect are
manifestations of the same force when experienced in each manifestation. A
law of three! The yes and no description of the neutral force is found in
all the levels. I agree with Pirsig's rational argument for Quality as the
groundstuff and how the Q- evolution has transcended the various static
barriers.
'I am old' is my way of saying that the force, life, which sustains my
evolution as an individual has a mechanically degenerating result. However,
consciousness, which IMO is the neutral force of the intellectual level,
through work puts me in an evolutionary active relationship with my activity
not merely a degenerating mechanical relationship. Life is passive,
mechanical, work is active, conscious.
[Bo] 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.
[Bo] 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.
[Joe] I hope my previous statement has explained my opinion of how the MOQ
intellect is not just a static level of degeneration, but also a dynamic
level of evolution.
[Bo] "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.
[Bo] 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.
[Joe] IMO the intellectual, biological and social levels are in me. I agree
that death would spell meaninglessness for the level, e.g., Alzheimer's
disease as the death of the dynamic intellectual level while the social and
biological levels of the individual press on. Death in a social level of the
individual produces an immoral automaton. Like you I associate the social
level with emotions. The order of existence and will decisions seem to lie
in the emotions. Death in the biological level of the individual is
paralysis. I place organic, inorganic, physical (sex, motion, mystical) as
combined in the biological level in an individual.
[Joe] In my jargon my understanding of your jargon SOL would be that S and O
are undefined and defined and L is neutral in a mechanical or dynamic
relationship? IMO my jargon would be DQ, SQ, with consciousness as neutral.
Asleep, awake, and hypnotized are aspects of consciousness. Conscience,
logic, and morality seem to fit the manifestation of intellect.
Joe
> 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
>
>
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 Jul 05 2005 - 21:39:28 BST