From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 15:19:09 BST
Hello everyone
>From: skutvik@online.no
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O
>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:05:51 +0200
>
>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?
Hi Bo
Good to hear from you too. In cutting and pasting I missed the first part of
the quote from you:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bodvar: This is exactly the way language/intellect developed, namely as a
survival tool for society. This is in fact an important part of Pirsig's
idea. He says so in Lila (on top of page 306, Bantam Press): "The
intellect's purpose has never been to discover the ultimate meaning of the
universe. That is a recent fad. Its historical purpose has been to help a
society find food, detect danger and defeat enemies. It can do this well or
poorly, depending on the concepts it invents for this purpose."
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully you'll see the relevance now.
>
> > >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.
I will be watching 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.
When RMP says "In LILA, I never defined the intellectual level of the MOQ,
since anyone who is up to reading LILA already knows what 'intellectual'
means" it seems to me he is saying the MOQ definition of intellect is the
same as the dictionary definition. There is no need to introduce a
mysterious Q-intellect.
>
>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!
I don't think this is quite right. In the MOQ, experience is synoymous with
Dynamic Quality. See page 515 in LILA'S CHILD.
>
> > 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!
I'm not sure about this either but will give it some thought. Thank you for
your reply.
Best wishes,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail
Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
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 - 15:20:52 BST