Re: MD The Intellectual Level

From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 02:16:07 BST

  • Next message: Valence: "Re: MD To MF or not to MF"

    Skutvik:
    The transition from the social- to the
    intellectual reality is splendidly described in ZMM.

    sq: This is your own loaded way of describing what is actually written in
    ZAMM. You take every opportunity to substitute your own low Quality ideas for
    those of Mr. Pirsig, which are of higher Quality in my view. And let us remember
    who wrote ZAMM? I very often wonder if you have half convinced yourself that
    you wrote it!

    ZAMM: The mythos-over-logos argument states that our rationality is shaped by
    these legends, that our knowledge today is in relation to these legends as a
    tree is in relation to the little shrub it once was. One can gain great
    insights into the complex overall structure of the tree by studying the much simpler
    shape of the shrub. There's no difference in kind or even difference in
    identity, only a difference in size.

    sq: Notice that rationality is shaped by presumed divisions, not intellect is
    shaped by presumed divisions. Rationality is no different in kind or identity
    to legend - both presume divisions and both organise thought. Intellect is
    not mentioned.

    ZAMM: Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes ancient Greece, one
    invariably finds a strong subject-object differentiation because the grammar of the old
    Greek mythos presumed a sharp natural division of subjects and predicates. In
    cultures such as the Chinese, where subject-predicate relationships are not
    rigidly defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding absence of rigid
    subject-object philosophy.

    sq: Thus, rationally organised thought is absent in Chinese culture because
    the presumed divisions are not so rigid. Intellect is not mentioned. Note:
    Chinese culture is highly aesthetic and arguably intelligent, but your own
    cultural blind spot prevents you from valuing this.

    ZAMM: What keeps the world reverting to the Neanderthal with each generation
    is the continuing, ongoing mythos, transformed into logos but still mythos,
    the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in
    the body of man.

    sq: Skutvik asserts that the presumed S/O division of the old Greek mythos is
    the intellectual level of the MoQ. But intellect is not mentioned.
    What is mentioned is a rational description of Social Quality:

    ZAMM: Walk into any of a hundred thousand classrooms today and hear the
    teachers divide and subdivide and interrelate and establish 'principles' and study
    'methods' and what you will hear is the ghost of Aristotle speaking down
    through the centuries - the desiccating lifeless voice of dualistic reason.

    sq: Rationality, shaped by presumed divisions: Dualistic reason. Intellect is
    not mentioned.
    Systematic organisation is made possible by dualistic reason. But systematic
    organisation is not the intellectual level. Thinking systematically is a
    method used by intellect. That is what the MoQ says. The aesthetic beauty of
    rational thought is found in its own peculiar DQ/SQ tension. Rational thought is
    Static Quality patterning in a relationship with Dynamic Quality. Note: SQ
    intellectual Quality is not merely rational thought; Rational thought is but a
    limited few patterns of static intellectual quality. But Skutvik has other ideas...

    For Skutvik, intellect is the presumed division. For Skutvik, intellect is
    rationality, shaped by presumed divisions: Dualistic reason. For Skutvik, the
    MoQ is the pinnacle of systematic organisation, shaped by presumed divisions.
    No wonder Skutvik never goes anywhere near Indian, Chinese or Zen teachings;
    he would find himself staring something very similar to the MoQ right between
    the eyes, if his cultural blind spot would allow him to see it. And then he
    would have a problem explaining how something very much like the MoQ had emerged
    without any old Greek mythos.

    The MoQ, which Skutvik has never really got to grips with, is an aesthetic.
    You are held in beauty. This may be why Skutvik displays no appreciation of
    intellectual beauty, or art in general.

    S/O patterns of thought have symbolised social and biological divisions for
    tens of thousands of years. But what Skutvik forgets is that intellect can
    symbolise unity and coherence, and probably did for tens of thousands of years.
    Sadly, the more he gets in the way of the MoQ, the less people may discover
    the beauty Skutvik would have deny them.

    squonk

    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 01 2003 - 02:16:41 BST