From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 13:09:42 BST
On 14 Sep 2003 at 13:01, SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
> Note that mind is a term not used in the MoQ - we say static
> intellectual patterns instead.
Skutvik:
I found "mind" used at 109 instances in the philosophical part of LILA.
Not bad for a term not used.
squonk 18-09-03: Mr. Pirsig is lively to his audience.
> These patterns are in a relationship
> with DQ.
Skutvik:
What would I do without your information.
squonk 18-09-03: I have no idea.
> Skutvik:
> This cuts the whole d..ed Gordic knot clean through!!. Q-intellect is
> the S/O, all of it, every last bit, while the MOQ is the intellectual
> pattern ... ..ambiguous enough for DQ to use it for the escape from
> intellect.
> squonk: Subjects and objects are culturally derived artistic creations
> of the intellect. They are static intellectual patterns of value. A
> better intellectual pattern is the MoQ, with its reference to the Tao
> or DQ. The term Q-intellect is meaningless in the MoQ.
Skutvik:
You bet they are, but I don't understand your exasperation over the
"Q-intellect" term, it's just an abbreviation for the "static intellectual
level of value". Will SILOV be better?
squonk 18-09-03: I am not exasperated. Far from it. It's just that i don't
know what to call your metaphysics; SOLOQI, The SOL interpretation, Bo's
metaphysics, The Skutvik doctrine, Bo's blues, Diddley squat, Mama's got a brand new
interpretation?
> squonk: You do not accept the MoQ.
Skutvik:
I have noted a few deviations from Pirsig's words when it suits you.
squonk 18-09-03: My deviations are usually mistakes on my part. I try hard to
get it right. One thing i do not do is assert that i am the author of 'the
proper MoQ.' Mind you, they do say, Intelligence borrows, genius steals.' They
also say there is a fine line between genius and 'hurry up van' time.
> squonk: Language is high intellectual value.
Skutvik:
If language is "high intellectual value", there must have been a time
(before language) with some lesser intellectual values. What were
these? And when was the social "age" ....if Pirsig's words about
"social" only pertaining to humans are to be observed?
squonk 18-09-03: Language is symbolic; language may symbolise social value,
(That is the leader - Rigel) biological, (Good smells and looks of that woman, <
man in some cases> - Lila) inorganic, (Good Land - American plains) Dynamic
(Quality, Tao, God, etc.) intellectual, (Good triangle.)
Notice these levels are evolving simultaneously. God as a static concept, and
not as a symbol for Dynamic experience, can be used to socially order people.
On the other hand, the Land may be seen as a Dynamic symbol of all
experience, as with Native American Indians. Your questions are inappropriate as they do
not recognise the MoQ.
As for words 'about,' etc. Let's have a quote so we may pin it down please?
Just curious.
Bo
squonk 18-09-03: Killed the cat.
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 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 13:10:49 BST