MD S/O-intellect or thinking-intellect?

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 11:04:53 BST

  • Next message: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com: "Re: MD S/O-intellect or thinking-intellect?"

    Everyone!
    Earlier I have suggested that Squonk's rage was due to his sensing
    that the S/O interpretation somehow violates DQ (as he sees it) but he
    rejects this explanation. It's now his aesthetical sense that is hurt, yet,
    it was these words of his that released my new approach.

    > ..........................Skutvik turns this around - his doctrine
    > asserts that subjects and objects are required for intellect.

    I was reflecting on this twisting my argument out of shape. It is of
    course the opposite way: Intellectual value is required for subjects and
    objects. I came to think about ZMM when young Phaedrus agonized
    over the fundamentals of existence. At that point he had not
    conceived of the MOQ - not even reached the Quality insight and was
    thus totally immersed in SOM. In retrospect, however, we see that he
    was struggling with the reality which was to become the intellectual
    level. Now, remember the first night on the trip when he told Chris that
    he once knew a character who was out to give REASON a good
    trashing? In other words Phaedrus' first enemy was reason which was
    later to turn into SOM, then - even later - did he arrive at the insight
    that ...."Quality (pre-intellectual) creates subjects and objects". Much
    later came the final MOQ in which pre-inorganic Quality creates
    inorganic values, pre-biological .....etc upwards, ending with pre-
    intellectual Quality creating subjects and objects ...i.e: the S/O reality.

    PS
    Upon returning I see that Rick somehow anticipates the ZMM point by
    referring to the Pirsig letter to Anthony. But Rick sees the snag and
    tries to solve it by suggesting an extra intellect. He says: "This
    pre/post-intellectual divide sits prior to all of the levels". Yes and yes
    again, but that which is not static is dynamic, so what forced young
    Phaedrus to the quality insight was DQ itself!!! ....or his logic, or his
    intelligence both of which are terms that can be made into
    metaphysics similar to the MOQ.

    But Quality is best, let there be no doubt about that.

    > Rick:
    > Quality is the "pre-intellectual" reality. All four levels exist
    > "post-intellectually". But note that in this sense, "intellectual" is NOT
    > the same as the level of the MoQ called "intellectual" (which, to Pirsig,
    > is a further subdivision of the category called 'subjects'). This
    > pre/post-intellectual divide sits prior to all of the levels

    Don't you all see what a mess we create of the MOQ if we retain the
    least vestige of SOM by making all levels "intellectual" - in the "in the
    mind" sense? I am of course wildly opposed to Jonathan (will answer
    him later) but grateful for him making it clear where we end starting on
    that path. I wonder for instance why Platt is shocked by Jonathan's
    assertion, it's a logical conclusion after all. The original MOQ rid
    existence of SOM's paradoxes and now so many are happy to
    introduce them into the MOQ. Why? The Quality Idea is an enormous
    leap forward, but if it's not made completely it becomes a travesty.

    PPS:
    Scott is demolishing Squonkstail and I'll just damage his effort by
    commenting, also, DMB's rock solid defences of the Social reality is at
    least a common cause, I don't dare to ask for his commitment to the
    S/O intellect, but the new quotes and comments he has presented
    points in that direction!

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 11:05:40 BST