From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Fri Aug 19 2005 - 00:31:22 BST
Sam,
<skip some agreement>
> Scott:
> I think that here is where we may be in disagreement, though how much that
> is in form versus content I'm not sure. I agree that the MOQ view of
> intellect is a bad one, but I see the cure as being more dispassionate,
> not
> less. I agree with the MOQ that intellect needs to free itself from social
> and biological influences, while I believe you hold it needs to be
> integrated with them in some way. Correct me if I've misunderstood.
Sam said:
It's all tied up with what 'dispassionate' means. I think it's a product of
a passionate attachment to one thing (truth, or God) which drives out all
other attachments (including, ultimately, itself, I guess. Not there yet
;-).
Scott:
Yes, but I think one also needs detachment from the passionate attachment to
one thing, by whatever name, but without denying the passion. Perhaps at
this point contradictory identity steps in, that with it one recognizes
oneself as an Original Sinner. That is, by formulating the problem in
contradictory identity terms, one is able to keep juggling one's passion for
truth, on the one hand, with one's acknowledgment that one doesn't have the
truth on the other.
Sam said:
That's what I think the prohibition on idolatry is all about. So I would
agree that the social and biological need to be transcended - and recognised
as valuable for what they are, ie it's not a sin to eat - but I don't think
that we become unemotional, strictly speaking, it's more that the emotion
becomes supremely refined (and therefore the intellect is sharpened and
developed).
Scott:
Yes again. In the end (one supposes), supremely refined emotion and
supremely refined intellect merge into one process.
> Scott:
> You've got the Buddhism right. The problem is that Pirsig has it wrong, in
> that he sees intellect as something to be transcended, rather than
> intellect
> as that which transcends. I should admit, though, that many Buddhists will
> agree with Pirsig, but I would argue that this is on account of
> misunderstanding intellect, just as Pirsig has. The problem is that most
> of
> the time in our current sorry state (that is, Original Sin, or as the
> Buddhists call it, ignorance), intellect doesn't transcend squat, but is
> largely used to justify our prejudices.
Sam said:
I think I agree with all of that. Intellect is that which transcends the
social level. Do you recognise anything "higher" than intellect (openness to
DQ)?
Scott:
No, since I regard intellect AS Quality, with its dynamic and static
contradictory identity. Intellect is also always transcending itself, which
is why it is not just another static level.
- Scott
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 : Fri Aug 19 2005 - 00:54:33 BST