Re: MD Dealing with S/O

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 16:40:29 BST

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: RE: MD Intellectual level - New letter from Pirsig"

    Hi Dan
     
    3 Oct. you wrote:
    > You haven't alienated me at all; my apologies if I've made it seem so.
    > There's nothing wrong with your SOLAQI and I didn't mean to suggest
    > there is. I just don't agree with where you're taking it -- that
    > doesn't mean it's wrong. While I may not be championing the idea you
    > know I've at least tried to understand what you're saying to the best
    > of my ability. There's nothing wrong all of a sudden, rather the work
    > I put into Lila's Child has perhaps changed how I once viewed the MOQ.
    > I trust my viewpoint has changed for the better but there are times
    > when I wonder...

    Mighty glad to hear this. I must say that Pirsig's letter seemed a
    certain move towards the S/O-intellect (the Greeks) .....at least away
    from the idea-intellect, so maybe in some future letter he will come all
    the way.;-)

    > Hopefully you know I'm not being abusive like some people in the
    > discussion group are prone to being. I'm just here to understand and
    > make myself understood.

    Yes, you always keep a most civil tone, I may seem too bombastic,
    but I had my own experience and when reading ZMM I interpreted it in
    the light of that and continued to do so with LILA, and still see it as
    the right way.

    > Let's consider the person who attempts to teach a dog to read and
    > write. Surely no matter how many times they write "water" in one paw
    > while running water over another paw, the dog will not form an
    > understanding as to what the person is attempting to communicate. The
    > dog lacks the intelligence to understand an intellectual symbol like a
    > word. A dog has evolved other traits to survive.

    Right, intellect is out of society, not out of biology and IMO language
    is/was the social "carbon" that DQ used to escape society. However,
    language isn't intellect. Helen Keller was no "animal" in spite of her
    handicaps, she had all the social patterns needed for intellect once
    the seed crystal was available.
     
    > Personally, reading Robert Pirsig's annotations in Lila's Child for
    > the first time opened my eyes to a number of ideas that I'd missed
    > reading ZMM and Lila (both several times). I look at LC as sort of a
    > synthesis of RMP's ideas in regards to the ambiguities raised by
    > members of the Lila Squad. I think the book is invaluable to
    > understanding the MOQ as RMP intends it. It could be I'm wrong.

    You are not wrong in your opinion about "Lila's Child" as a help in
    clarifying the MOQ ...and maybe about Pirsig's intentions too, but it
    can be that the MOQ is even grander than Pirsig.

    > It's
    > true that I've been told by more than one person that LC is a pile of
    > crap. I've seriously considered whether it should even be published at
    > all or not. I get the feeling you might think not? I even thought
    > about just sitting on the document, keeping it for myself so to speak.

    "The Lila Child" is a great book in itself and your achievement is not
    dependent upon what people may think about Pirsig's sayings. Maybe
    our long discussion has familiarized us with the MOQ to a degree
    almost beyond him. At least we have charted more routes than he
    single-handed could have managed and its future ramifications no
    one can oversee, but you are forever connected with it.

    > Maybe share it with a few close friends. Maybe. But that seemed wrong
    > somehow. I suppose only time will tell. I keep working on LC to make
    > it better and if anyone has any suggestions I would love to hear them.

    I'm grateful you published it, and a second edition may soon be
    required.

    > But if the intellect is the SOM division, is it possible to think
    > quality thoughts and understand Quality Metaphysics?

    Yes, and yes again, but the moment you do you are not thinking from
    the intellectual LEVEL's premises.

    > Are you saying
    > that we all here in this discussion group are operating in a sphere
    > beyond intellect?

    Obviously not all :-)

    > I have to say, I'm struggling to understand a lot of
    > what is said here so I don't feel all that intellectual, much less
    > beyond intellectual.

    Beyond the intellectual LEVEL isn't beyond thinking or logic or
    anything, we constantly revert to (think from) society biology's
    premises so that require no supernatural powers.

    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 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 16:49:55 BST