From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 15:58:38 BST
Hello Khoo Hock Aun,
I agree with you.
My concern is that the Skutvik doctrine relies upon a division between
subjects and objects before intellect or intelligence is deemed valid. I feel the
MoQ says subjects and objects are artistic creations of the intellect - they are
patterns of value. That is a very important notion to grasp i feel.
Thus, the way out from intellectual circles may be, as i feel the MoQ is
saying, to recognise that intellect is aesthetic. That was the link between East
and West that FSC Northrop proposed, and i feel Robert Pirsig has gone a long
way to actually doing it.
Its great to hear from you,
All the best,
squonk
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
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 - 23:47:01 BST