From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Nov 22 2003 - 06:16:52 GMT
Steve,
> Steve:
> Thanks for explaining. I pretty much agree with your last comments about
> difficulty with intellect taking us away from reality, which is how I
would
> word the problem. I don't see a problem with thinking of intellect as
> "pre-intellectual" because I think we use the term intellect differently.
I
> see intellect as a type of static pattern which must follow DQ as all
> patterns are created by DQ. But I also bristle when Platt interprets
Pirsig
> to be saying that thinking takes us further from primary reality and
> thinking about thinking is even further. I don't see how we could ever be
> closer to or further from reality.
Because of the L of CI, I think your "I see intellect as a type of static
pattern which must follow DQ" as inadequate to intellect, that it reflects
the nominalist bias of modern philosophy, including the MOQ. I prefer the
Neo-Platonist view that Intellect is the first emanation from the One,
though I would update that into the Buddhist formula (which is, one might
say, the archetype phrase of the L of CI): form is not other than emptiness,
emptiness is not other than form. And I harp on this, because our own
intellect is the most immediate example of this we have. In thinking we are
experiencing DQ/SQ tension.
- Scott
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 : Sat Nov 22 2003 - 06:29:06 GMT