RE: MD Intellect and its critics

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 19:23:57 BST

  • Next message: Pi: "Re: MD Intellectual patterns? huh?"

    Bo, khoo hock aun, Sam and all MOQsters:

    Bo said:
    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!

    dmb says:
    Like the idea of the "autonomous individual", which was Sam's if memory
    serves, I think that SOM as a DEFINITION of the intellectual level goes too
    far. Whille its clear that individuality and materialism dominate our
    present Western worldview and thereby dominate our intellectual world, I
    don't think either of these characteristics can be expanded to the point
    that they describe the essence, or whatever, of the MOQ's 4th level. More
    specifically, I think its clear that non-SOM intellectual descriptions are
    entirely possible. In fact, the MOQ is one such example. Other examples have
    already been cited. I think this point alone is enough to dispell SOLAQI.
    But as I already suggested, the notion is not without some foundation. If we
    were talking about the dominant worldview I'd be more likely to go along,
    provided it was only a generalization with plenty of room for exceptions,
    but I think it fails as a definition of the 4th level. It just goes too far.

    Here's a little secret. I think that SOM is only the Western form of an
    illusion that has haunted all of humanity. Its like an intellectual and
    scientific assertion that the Maya is all that is real. It is a metaphysical
    system that asserts that this illusion is reality. Pirsig, like some
    mystical mechanic, tries to show what's wrong with that assertion and
    exactly how it is an illusion. The quote below, I think, shows something
    about the downside of intellect. In the transition from social to
    intellectual level values, and the modes of consciousness that go with them,
    something was gained but the continuum had to be shattered. This is the
    Maya, the world of the ten thousand things. The world of unity enjoyed by
    ancient poets was lost in the process.

    James Powell wrote: (Thanks, Khoo Hock Aun.)
    " The ancient poets speak in the name-form continuum. Thus in the act of
    speaking or calling, sensible objects are created, are named and are divine.
    The poetic universe of unity of name and form holds the subject, the name,
    the deity and the object together - they are all one unified experience. But
    when the illuminative Word falls, it fragments - subject, object and diety
    are divided from one another. The name is only a word . The subject, if not
    endowed with poetic vision, needs the priest to join all together again. And
    thus all the Gods are seen in churches and temples rather than in the human
    breast where the human heart pulses"

    Not that we want to go back to some semi-conscious state of blissful
    original participation, except perhaps on vacation. That would be going
    backward. I think the trick is to re-integrate the head and the heart and
    find a newer, higher level of "unity" or harmony. Or something like that.
    Then some day that higher level will become inadequate or obsolete in some
    way and will need to be surpassed and so on.... But presently, we have a
    worldview that isolates the intellect, alienates the individual and robs the
    soul of any sense of unity. This whole process, I think, has a long way to
    go before it becomes mature and gets straightened out. We need an
    unfragmented, global world view that does not take science and spirituality
    to be enemies and such. Only some time after that will the 4th level become
    too restrictive.

    Sure, DQ is the goal and any kind of static can bog one down. But here we
    are talking about freedom, spirituality and creativity on a personal level,
    whereas the topic of this discussion, as I understand it, is a metaphysical
    discription of our collective evolution. We're talking about the transition
    from social to intellectual values and the nature of those levels, no? I
    point out this distinction in response to a objection or two I've seen along
    the way. It never hurts to be reminded that DQ is the goal and the primary
    reality, I guess, but it seems that point gets tossed around like a monkey
    wrench, even when the topic is unrelated.

    Thanks,
    dmb

    P.S. Bo, I think Squawk's attempt to paint you as a racist only makes him
    look ugly. His ridiculous accusations only paint him as a hateful and
    irrational child. Don't take them to heart.

    (Unless you're a racist, of course. -- Just kidding.)

    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 - 19:30:14 BST