From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 19:41:18 BST
Khoo Hock Aun,
As Sam says, welcome. (I've changed the name of the subject heading)
I agree with what you say except at the end:
" 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."
My answer is not "more" intellect, but "better" intellect, since I am of
the opinion that we have not arrived at the height of intellect. The
reason Bo and I see the S/O divide as Q-intellect (that is, as what
originally was good about independent intellect, as opposed to intellect
that only served social survival) is that it allows for detachment, for
the capacity to reflect on things and not be driven by things, or how
society expects one to react to things. However, that it allows for
detachment does not mean that we are detached. Thus, I see spiritual
practice (concentration and meditation) as a means of strengthening the
intellect. Eventually, one (one hopes) does transcend the intellect by
realizing the Intellect behind the ego's intellect, though at that point
(I am conjecturing) the Intellect merges with DQ.
However, that is for the individual to do on his or her own, while for
the populace in general, whenever they interact, including on this
forum, it is just plain better intellect that is needed. In this case,
detachment is what is needed to, for example,. see through politicians'
speeches to recognize that they are mostly just pushing our buttons, to
dig out unstated assumptions, etc. What traditionally has been called
objectivity, but with the MOQ we need a different name, one that doesn't
imply the throwing out of value. I suggest "detached intellect" or
"detached thinking".
The acme of this endeavor, in my opinion, is the activity of
deconstructing the intellect. But as Derrida was well aware, to do so is
further use of the intellect (or in his case, one necessarily uses the
logocentric vocabulary to deconstruct logocentrism.) As I've mentioned
many times, there are various people who have pointed out that the first
people to work on this were mystics, in particular Nagarjuna, though one
can make a case for the negative theology strain in the West as well.
The difference between Nagarjuna and Derrida, of course, is that the
former saw the deconstructive activity as salvific (in Buddhist terms).
If I had sense I would stop here, because I am about to get more
esoteric, but what the hell. Rudolf Steiner (in "The Philosophy of
Freedom", more recently translated as "Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual
Path") claims that what we usually know as thinking is only the product
of what he calls pure or intuitive thinking. He claims (and Georg
KFChlewind describes this in more detail in his books) that with
discipline in thinking one can reach this level of thinking where there
is no longer an S/O divide. So, if one accepts this, it is another
reason to say we shouldn't be seeking to directly transcend the
intellectual level, but to concentrate on it and work through it.
There is a moral question as well. It is that there is a danger that if
we give up on the intellect too soon, we are more likely to backslide
than move forward. This is what, in my opinion, is going on with most
New Age stuff, and of course is how Pirsig analyses the Hippie
phenomenon.
- Scott
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 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 00:10:22 BST