Re: MD Dealing with S/O

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 20:50:55 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Dealing with S/O"

    Bo:
    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)

    Mark: Hello Bo,
    The term 'forced' here implies, for me at least, that Pirsig has a problem
    with the term mind. I do not feel this is the case; i do not feel Pirsig has
    been 'forced' to deliver a definition he would not, or could not provide. I think
    this, because static intellectual patterns are, to some extent, socially
    approved - your thinking is influenced by your social experience as well as your
    intellectual experience. This introduces static social patterns into the
    equation, which are themselves responding to the same DQ that static intellectual
    patterns respond to. You can see this makes a definition of mind in MoQ terms as
    appropriate as defining Relativity in Newtonian terms? Mind is a term that
    does not belong in the MoQ, just as absolute time does not belong in Relativity.
    If it is inappropriate for the MoQ to define mind then it may be
    inappropriate to introduce the term Q-intellect also?

    > '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

    Bo:
    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.

    Mark: Mind is ingrained because we are socially conditioned to accept it
    don't you feel? Average Joe in the street gives a description of mind that is
    derived from his social and intellectual experiences; perhaps Joe A saw a movie in
    which someone said, 'Hey Mr! You are out of your mind!' But Joe A is in the
    same position as the scientist in that they both cannot give a good account of
    it. I use the term 'good' deliberately, because although the scientist tries
    to say something, what he says only makes understanding less clear.
    So, when you say mind is part and parcel of the mind/matter dichotomy i would
    disagree: Mind is a static intellectual pattern that has been socially
    approved.

    You say that mind (Q-intellect) is the intellectual level of the MoQ - the
    subject/object divide is valued for its dynamic potential and this is mind,
    because all intellect is of subjects and objects. From mind comes the Quality idea
    and the M of the MoQ.
    Before mind there was language with no S/O discriminations, and this was the
    social level (Q-society.)
    You generate a hierarchy of evolution that looks like this:
    1. Q-inorganic.
    2. Q-organic
    3. Q-social
    4. Q-intellectual
    5. Quality metaphysics.
    Once Q-Metaphysics gets a hold the other levels tow the line and submit to
    Quality in an ever unifying move towards the Universal.

    I hope i have given a fair and accommodating account of your position along
    side that of the MoQ?
    Mark

    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 - 20:52:50 BST