From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 18:58:42 BST
Hi Platt, (Sam,)
>> I don't think that what is best is to be dominated by intellect. Pirsig
>> says what is best is to be free of all static patterns which is often
>> interpreted to mean some sort of enlightenment. I think it may also be
>> read to mean having everything in balance.
>
> Don't you think it would be better to be dominated by intellect than by
> society, the Giant?
Yes.
>Also, could you explain a bit more what you mean by
> "balance?" Do you mean an even split among the levels, 25 percent
> inorganic, 25 percent biological, etc.
I tell you the perfect balance if you'll kindly define Quality for me. ;-)
It's the same issue, isn't it?
Certainly the drug addict, the obese comedian, the sociopath, and Spock
haven't found the proper balance, however.
>Personally, I'd rather be weighted
> toward the intellectual level. There's more freedom in the land of
> abstraction.
Personally, I feel that I am too dominated by the intellectual level. (This
does not mean that I think I'm too smart. I feel fortunate and humbled by
the opportunity to communicate on this list with so many people with far
more brain power than I can muster on my best day.) It means I don't have
all the levels of Steve in balance. It means I actually have to remind
myself to return the question when one of my coworkers passes me in the hall
and says, "how are you?" The question doesn't come naturally for me at all,
probably because I generally don't really care about the answer ("care is
the internal view of Quality," or something like that in ZAMM).
I often feel awkward in social situations and I really wish that I could
replicate the copied social responses that others perform so smoothly;
however, I certainly would not give up my intellectual awareness for social
quality. That would be a form of suicide. Better to be an unhappy Socrates
than a content pig, as someone said.
>> But Phaedrus himself is a bit of a Spock, isn't he?
>>
>> He is intellectually dominated to the point that he can't really have a
>> conversation with someone because his mind starts drifting away. Look at
>> how the Narrator in ZAMM deals with his troubled son as well.
>>
>> Sam, perhaps intellect as "manipulation of symbols that stand for patterns
>> of experience latched as copied rationales" works fine, it's just that it's
>> NOT best for experience to be dominated by symbols any more that it should
>> be dominated by social roles or emotions and biological urges, but rather
>> to have all these aspects of being human in balance. Perhaps that is a
>> good description of Eudaimonia.
>
> Back to "balance" again. Given my druthers, I'd rather be balanced like
> Pirsig than Rigel or Lila. If I'm equally balanced in all four levels, I
> doubt if I could act at all for fear of "offending" a higher or lower
> level.
I don't think it's a mater of equal weight to each level. We have a
hierarchy or what Wilber would call a holarchy since each higher level
includes the lower ones. Lower levels need to be respected because they
support the higher ones.
To be dominated by intellect is to be dominated by that aspect of the
intellectual level that is not social, biological, or inorganic. Any of the
junior levels could suffer by such a domination causing the whole thing to
collapse. If I engage in intellectual pursuits to the point that my health
suffers, what have I gained? At least any gains would be short term.
Thanks,
Steve
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 May 26 2003 - 18:57:20 BST