From: Pi (pi@mideel.ath.cx)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 02:30:14 BST
Hi Scott,
I will attempt to respond to a certain points from your post...
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 12:41:18PM -0600, Scott R wrote:
> 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.
I think think there is no such thing as the 'height of intellect'. That phrase seems to imply that there is a maximum height! It is as irrelevant as saying that we humans have reached the 'height of biological evolution'. (Mind you, some evolutionary biologists believe that this is it!) Sure, it is the highest point yet, but it is not the highest point ever.
I don't think transcending the intellect would merge it with DQ. Transcending the intellect can typically be done by stopping the intellectual process. At that point you (which is a contradiction in terms, because if you lack the intellectual patterns, are *you* even there anymore?) experience DQ, you experience the cutting edge of experience without the attempt to intellectualize 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.
I don't think we as a society could ever just drop the intellectual patterns. As I see it, social patterns don't exist in isolation of intellectual patterns. Both need each other. Social static patterns are the underlying patterns that let the larger intellectual pattern to emerge. On the flip side, the large intellectual pattern supports and strengthens the underlying social pattern. Just look at an ant colony for a simple example.
Assuming that it is even possible to drop intellectual patterns, I don't think it is important to ask if we backslide or slide forward. Ask a hippie if they ever thought that they were backsliding when the rest of the non-hippie world thought so.
- Pi
-- "I didn't know it was impossible when I did it." 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 - 01:32:50 BST