Re: MD S/O-intellect or thinking-intellect?

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 07:55:00 BST

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD Biographical Detail"

    HI Bo, Squonk, all

    Would it be better to use the word "consciousness" instead of intellect,
    when thinking of what is required for subjects and objects? That way it
    wouldn't be confused with the intellectual level, and patterns of all levels
    would be created around a consciousness by DQ, along with the
    consciousness's self-consciousness...

    >From: skutvik@online.no
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >Subject: MD S/O-intellect or thinking-intellect?
    >Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:04:53 +0200
    >
    >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
    >

    _________________________________________________________________
    Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

    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 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 07:55:30 BST