From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 08:05:51 BST
Dan, Mark, David M. and All.
22 Sep. you wrote:
> Bodvar: All value patterns started their "career" in the service ofrelevance
> the parent level, but gradually they took off on their own and became
> a new value dimension. (page 37, LILA'S CHILD)
Good to have an input from you Dan, but I'm not sure what relevance
my above has for David M's question below?
> >Can someone post up the bit in Lila's Child
> >that puts mind on the fourth level please.
and for the Pirsig quotation below ...?
> 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)
Dan, I have a post under preparation that hopefully will reconcile all
definitions of Q-intellect. Look out for it.
Mark wrote (the 22th):
> I don't think Pirsig wishes to have to say this, but his audience wants to know what mind is, and so he speaks
> in a general way: 'let (us) say...'
I like this Mark, I've always tried to explain it in a similar way: Pirsig
was forced to deliver a definition and "mind" came closest to Q-
intellect (I call)
> 'Intellect is simply thinking' Lila's Child
> PIRSIG in a letter to Ant McWatt Jan 2nd 1998:
> "To prevent confusion, the MOQ treats 'mind' as the
> exact equivalent of 'static intellectual patterns' and
> avoids use of the term when possible."
> Static intellectual patterns are the fourth level in the MoQ and mind is a term that is to be avoided. If
> people have an ingrained concept of mind, (which is a useless concept if the process of thinking is not
> involved), then it can be difficult shift without a degree of resistance? As static intellectual patterns
> respond to DQ, thinking is a Dynamic, and hopefully evolving process. Sorry for the confusion, Mark
You are right, "mind" is ingrained because it's part and parcel of the
mind/matter dichotomy which descends directly from the S/O divide.
The term can't be avoided, but must (as part of the S/O) find its place
within the MOQ and I still think the whole intellectual level is its proper
place. The MOQ is a development "out of intellect", it is born there (in
the same way that Q-intellect was born from Q-society) but is a
stranger at home.
David M (today. Below becomes above here):
> 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.
Hmm. Perhaps you have an important point here. Intellect an aspect
of mind?! But as Q-intellect is a static aspect of DQ, it means that
MIND = DQ and THAT one I buy!
> 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.
S/O is inevitable but S/O Metaphysics can be discarded in ...IS
discarded once one accepts the MOQ as a matter of fact!
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 : Wed Sep 24 2003 - 08:13:36 BST