From: Robert Warlov (Poetzzz@softhome.net)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 12:53:12 BST
I think I'm thinking but not sure what I'm thinking.
What I think is that there is more than one way to define intellect.
Intellect created by society (language being the means by which separate
entities organize i.e., persons in society), is one, and the other is the
intellect that allowed the cells of our bodies (biology) to organize. In
other words, intellect is not just what happens in our heads but occurs on
the cellular (biological) level too.What I'm suggesting is that cells
communicate and are therefore intelligent. They send and receive
information. If Dynamic Quality is the driver, Intellect is the wheel. It
preceeds society and biology too!
I'd like to address one more thing. The statement below:
'The aim of the MoQ is to expand the use and flexibility of thought.'
I rather imagined the aim would be to enlighten us (that Victorian torch
comes so readily to mind) so we would take the next step beyond 'intellect'
or at least achieve it's Dynamic edge.
Left somewhat unanswered is the "moral revolution" of the 'hippies' (we
referred to ourselves, if at all, as 'freaks' (to 'baffle them with
bull-shit'
as it were). The repudiation of both society and intellect would insist we
now move toward Dynamic Quality which is to be found in the Mystery
(mystic), beyond, or before language (chaos) om.... (that doesn't stand for
'object metaphysics' but the sound of no word, no thought....)
I imagine too, Mr. Persig having the time of his life at the event horizon
of reality while we shmucks wallow in his metaphyicsayics (that is as
philosophology is to philosophy). Time to run away to perfect non sense!
Om . . . . Did I blow your mind?
Robert Warlov
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 3:11 AM
Subject: RE: MD The Intellectual Level
> Hi Jonathan.
> Good to see you.You said:
>
> > As another veteran reading from the shadows, let me throw in my 2
> > cents worth:
>
> > The definition of the intellectual level has been the sticking point
> > since this group started.
>
> How true!
>
> > The main problem is confusion with the
> > social level, a confusion that RMP fuelled in Lila by saying that the
> > social and intellectual levels are equivalent to the "mind" of SOM.
>
> Or "..the subjective part of SOM", but that is the same thing.
>
> > This in turn led to people talking in this forum about "social level"
> > thinking.
>
> Am I one of those?. I would have liked to qualify, but ..KISS.
>
> > The recent posts convince me more than ever that "social level
> > thinking" is an oxymoron. To be governed by the social level is to do
> > things "unthinkingly" based on what society expects.
>
> First "oxymoron". My dictionary don't contain that? Hmm. "Unthinkingly"?
> But OK there is something interesting to come.
>
> > Thinking is what DEFINES the intellectual level.
> > Pirsig did his best
> > work at outlining the intellectual level in ZAMM, where he describes
> > its institutionalized form - THE CHURCH OF REASON.
>
> Agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
>
> > I would assume that
> > the earliest hominids had considerable powers of thought, but only in
> > the last few thousand years that thought was honed into the powerful
> > intellectual tools we know today, such as dialectical argument and
> > logic.
>
> Doesn't this contradict your "unthinking" statement. The earliest hominids
> were definitely from before the intellectual level. But I agree 100%
>
> > These tools now govern our lives - something we call the "AGE
> > OF REASON". For this, we owe a lot to the Greek philosophers, who
> > forged a particular type of thinking (SOM). Pirsig's frustration with
> > the Church of Reason was that it has restricted thinking so much that
> > perfectly "reasonable" thoughts are outside its realm. Thus, the
> > SOM-thinking churchgoers follow their exclusively SOM thoughts to the
> > point of absurdity. There's nothing reasonable about that!
>
> I agree with everything you say, but what was "thinking" before the Greek
> philosophers? I still have this hunch that what so many understand by
> "thinking" or "mind" (and why they get so upset by the S/O-intellect
> interpretation) is the dynamic aspect of existence.
>
> > To summarize, please can we follow the KISS maxim (keep it simple,
> > stupid!):
>
> > Intellect is thinking!!
> > The aim of the MoQ is to expand the use and flexibility of thought.
>
> OK, everything you have said supports the view that the intellectual LEVEL
> emerged with the Greeks and is the S/O divide or reason, yet - after
having
> said that the early hominids (of the social era) had "considerable powers
of
> thought" - insist on the thinking definition of intellect. Please explain.
Don't
> be afraid of you know who.:-)
> Sincerely.
> 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 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 12:58:09 BST