From: Destination Quality (planetquality@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 21:22:02 BST
khoo hock aun, squad....
"Having arrived at the height of intellect how do we deconstruct it ? More
intellect doesn't seem to be the answer"
sharp observation, well sharp, after a thousand or so times this has been
discussed it is kind of hard to miss, I look forward to the day when we
realise that Intellect is more mythically, more social, more unconscious
than we could have ever imagined. Intellect is a source, not a goal. If
there was to be a magical fifth level it would not have to do much with
rationality I reckon, it would be the intuititive sense of what is good,
what is dynamic and an intuitive disgust of what is degenerate. But even
that shall turn out to be a dream for it is degeneracy, the lower level
latching what defines the good, and harmony exists by mercy of the smiling
devil disorder.
davor
>From: <hockaun@pc.jaring.my>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Racism in the forum.
>Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:08:55 +0800
>
>Hello, Squonk, Bo, Scott, Steve, Johnny, Joe and all
>
>I find this thread fascinating. I have been following the forum silently
>for years "over here from my box" but feel compelled to say something now.
>
>Chinese society for instance has always considered itself culturally and
>morally "superior" to the barbaric rest of the world. The Middle Kingdom
>assimmilated the cultures it came into contact with (both as conquerer and
>the conquered) but left the barbaric rest of the world alone. Until western
>science, technology and intellect manifested its imperial muscle to subdue
>the nation but not its culture and society. Even when infected with
>communist ideology, the shared Chinese culture had a "we are superior" edge
>to it. I believe this worldview still exists, in Greater China, Taiwan,
>Singapore and the rest of the Chinese diaspora. So if Bo's views imply a
>position of cultural superiority over the rest of the world, I dare say we
>are all guilty of it as well, perhaps for different reasons. That is if we
>want to go down that road.
>
>I am tempted to say that the Chinese, along with the Indians, Japanese and
>other hindu or buddhist based cultures have long tangled with the
>subject-object divide and learned to live with it, so to speak. The
>contemporaries of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Greece were the Buddha
>in India, Lao Tze and Confucius in China. Buddhist philosophy has a
>distinct subject-object component but that is not all to it. Lao Tze's
>metaphysics was about the "undefined" but Confucius sought to place a
>cultural structure and order into Chinese society, caring less for what
>cannot be empirically ascertained.
>
>Back to the intellectual level, the mind is included as a sense-door in
>Buddhism in addition to the other five, capable of generating concepts and
>constructions, that may or may not have relation to reality itself.
>Transcending the mind, hence the intellectual level is a primary objective
>in Buddhism. The dilemma that Pirsig presents after ZAMM and Lila and faced
>by this group is where do we go from here? Undefined "quality" is itself
>the fifth level, the harmony we achieve when we take down the intellectual
>scaffolding that brought us here. Having arrived at the height of intellect
>how do we deconstruct it ? More intellect doesn't seem to be the answer.
>
>And I do concur that this group needs to make a breakthrough from the
>intellectual circles that its has found itself mired in. I hope this is one
>such rare opportunity.
>
>Best regards
>
>Khoo Hock Aun
>
>----- Original Message -----
> From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 8:31 AM
> Subject: Re: MD Racism in the forum.
>
>
> If an individual, or group of individuals hold a socially approved
>definition of what intellect or intelligence is, and if that definition is
>culturally narrow, then the said group have arbitrarily discriminated
>between cultures.
> Further, if the definitions regard morally related evolutionary levels,
>then the discrimination is along lines of moral superiority.
>
> Its not rocket science is it?
>
> Thus, the Skutvik doctrine asserts an over active office clerk is
>morally superior to Confucius.
>
> The MoQ, however, describes intellect and intelligence as a relationship
>between DQ and Static patterns, and as DQ is undefined, there is no
>definition of intellect outside the relationship. The relationship is
>derived from an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.
>
> The derivation began at a time no one can identify, but appears, from
>linguistic evidence, to have begun with social ritual. Thus, using language
>to symbolise the wonder of social aesthetic is not social aesthetic - it is
>intellect making its first foray into Human life.
>
>
> Skutvik never discusses art or aesthetics - he does not have the
>conceptual vocabulary to handle it. He does not have the conceptual
>vocabulary to handle it because his own definitions negate them. It is
>little wonder when it comes to the East, Skutvik blithely talks of, 'these
>people' as if they are over there somewhere in a box.
>
> squonk
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Zoeken, voor duidelijke zoekresultaten! http://search.msn.nl
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 : Sat Jul 12 2003 - 21:34:36 BST