From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 20:36:05 BST
Hi all
Hey thanks for below:
I don't believe the below, it says that the intellectual
can be seen as an aspect of mind not that mind is an
aspect of the intellectual level, some of the arguments
I seem to have read seem to have inverted this quote.
However, the quote does seems to imply SOM dualism
with 'stands for' -a possible mistake, but we all slip into SOM
here and there. Whatever we experience, whichever organs
are involved (eg brain), whatever theories we might suggest about
objetcs, it is all just one unified experience.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O
> Bodvar: All value patterns started their "career" in the service of the
> parent level, but gradually they took off on their own and became a new
> value dimension. (page 37, LILA'S CHILD)
>
> Pirsig annotation #25: This is OK. In LILA, I never defined the
intellectual
> level of the MOQ, since anyone who is up to reading LILA already knows
what
> "intellectual" means. For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say the
> intellectual level is the same as mind. It is the collection and
> manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stands for patterns of
> experience. (page 60, LC)
>
>
> >From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> >Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O
> >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:28:42 +0100
> >
> >Hi
> >
> >Can someone post up the bit in Lila's Child
> >that puts mind on the fourth level please.
> >
> >Thanks
> >David Morey
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <skutvik@online.no>
> >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> >Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:36 AM
> >Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O
> >
> >
> > > Scott
> > > On 19 Sep.you wrote:
> > > > [Scott prev:] I think I agree. I also think that
Coleridge/Barfield's
> > > > metaphysics is the one I need to work with, and not Pirsig's.
> > >
> > > Bo prev:
> > > > >Too bad, but just for curiosity's sake, is there a
Coleridge/Barfield
> > > > > metaphysics? If so what is its first postulate?
> > >
> > > Scott now:
> > > > Yes. The first postulate is that all that is, is as a result of "two
> > > > forces of one Power", called "free life" and "confining form". Sound
> > > > familiar?
> > >
> > > Yes it sounds familiar, but is there an identification of a S/O
> > > Metaphysics? And is there a new metaphysical opening starting with
> > > something - like Value in the MOQ - that the "free" and "confining"
are
> > > aspects of, except a power? And is there a hierarchy of "confined
> > > powers" starting with "confined inorganic power" ...and so on
> > > ...ending with "confined intellectual power"? And how does
> > > (Coleridge/Barfield?) define this last one?
> > >
> > > I was disappointed by your statement that the C/B metaphysics is the
> > > one you need, and not Pirsig's, still hope it wasn't all serious.
> > >
> > > > [Scott pre prev:] In any case, my interest is in the mind. Pirsig
puts
> > > > the mind as the fourth static level.
> > >
> > > Bo prev.:
> > > > He did not ..put the
> > > > mind as the fourth static level until Lila's Child.......etc.
> > >
> > > Scott now:
> > > > I think I agree with others that, though he did not explicitly say
so,
> > > > he nevertheless considered mind as the intellectual level while
> > > > writing Lila, i.e., his explicit statement in LC is consistent with
> > > > Lila. Nevertheless, I agree (as I have been expostulating in other
> > > > posts to Paul, Platt, and DMB) that the treatment of mind and
> > > > intellect in Lila needs work. However, I would also say that the
ZAMM
> > > > picture also needs work, to be provided by the logic of
contradictory
> > > > identity.
> > >
> > > Needs work. Right. I have a post almost ready to the MD where I
> > > propose a solution to all differences over the intellectual level. I
am
> > > particularly interested in your reaction, so keep an eye open for it.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local
> service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 20:34:45 BST