From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 22:33:55 GMT
Bo
Interesting post. Starting to grasp what you are saying I think.
Society and language clearly makes what we think of as
individuals possible. And surely there is a link between individualisation
and reason, because reason attempts to get away from lots of
different points of view to its objective stancwe and hence SOM.
But where intellect is now is perhaps not the last word on its
final fruition. I think other thinks have to be brought in.
Whilst evolution moves towards reliable technology/materials
to begin with like DNA in returns to DQ and seeks a more
free and developed position. So perhaps from the constraints
of SOM, intellect is moving on to MOQ. Certainly what Pirsig
has to say about quality/experience/value is going beyond SOM
within the realm of intellect. How do you square the role of value with
intellect post-SOM? I think the levels need to be shown to move
from nothing/freedom/photons to material/determined/molecular reality
to life/achieveed freedom, with this endless move to SQ/constriant
to achieve actuality and then away from actuality back to DQ/freedom.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: MD The MOQ: An expansion of rationality
> Steve and All
>
> 20 Dec. you wrote:
>
> Me earlier:
> > > Does Pirsig say that subjects and objects belong to the intellectual
> > > level?
>
> > I didn't want to say that subject and objects belong to the intellectual
> > level. I need to distinguish symbols and their referents to be more
clear.
>
> > Intellect is the manipulation of symbols in both the MOQ and SOM.
>
> Steve, this brings us nowhere, let me just try another angle, terribly
> irrelevant, but bear with me.
>
> Way back I made a list of the "expressions" (I called) connected
> with each level:
>
> Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason.
>
> The first is more for rhyme's sake, but the rest has proved
> extremely useful in understanding the MOQ - a "task" that has two
> big obstacles: The first one is a mindish interpretation of intellect
> and the second is diminishing the social level.
>
> You once said that I "courted" DMB, this was for his strong
> defence of the social reality. For a long time he seemed to draw
> the correct conclusion from his own reasoning, but suddenly
> changed course. Anyway, the 3rd. level is one of outmost
> importance and required as much mental power as intellect, yet,
> its expression is definitely EMOTIONAL , ref. Homer's "Iliad" which
> is one long tale of unfetterd such. The blurb on the cover says:
>
> "The stirring story of the Trojan War and the RAGE of Achilles
> has gripped listeners and readers for 2700 years. This timeless,
> powerful poem still vividly conveys the horror and the heroism of
> men and gods wrestling with TOWERING EMOTIONS ...etc." (my
> capitals)
>
> Now, to my point. What replaced the mythological era was the age
> of reason (that's applies regardless the MOQ) and the conclusion
> to draw is: If one identifies the myth era with the social level - and
> this is characterized by emotions - then the intellectual level must
> be expressed by reason! (and that reason is the S/O distinction
> can't be denied).
>
> I could go on, f.ex refer to the analysis of Islam vs The West as
> society vs intellect, something I know that Pirsig endorses. It's
> plain that Islam reflects Emotions: The public burial scenes of
> naked grief; the street rallies of as naked hatred, the devotion of the
> Sep.11 "pilots". This compared to how embarrassing such behavior
> seems to the average Westerner, our skepticism regarding emotion
> and attempts to avoid it in judicial proceedings ....everything fits the
> social=emotion, intellect=reason scheme. As plain is it that
> intellect has nothing to do with "manipulation of symbols" or (least
> of all) "mental activity".
>
> But in spite of this indicators of the true nature of the social-
> intellectual relation, when members this discussion group is called
> upon to define these two levels, they seem to abandon "reason":
> Society retreats back into pre-pre-historic time to become some
> insignificant episode between Biology and Intellect, and intellect
> follows this drift back to have its origin in song-and-dance rituals.
> Even Pirsig lapses into these notions so remote from his own
> convincing presentation of intellect's emergence out of society in
> ZMM. Strange as he - in the letter to Paul - speaks about so recent
> times as Homer and the biblical prophets as pre-intellectual.
>
> Sincerely
> Bo
>
>
> PS.
> You ended thus:
>
> > I'm fine with thinking of intellect in terms of a symbol/experience
> > distinction though I don't buy your claim that symbols are subjective
and
> > experience objective.
>
> Maybe you don't buy it, but look at this by Amilcar Kabral over at
> the MF
>
> > > When RMP writes "independently manipulable signs" i think he's
> > > referring to the fact that we have pictures, signs and words in our
> > > heads that only 'stand for' what we see/hear/feel in the external
> > > world.
>
> This is SOM and it follows inevitably from the symbol-manipulating
> intellect, regardless what twists and turns you may do to try to
> avoid it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Dec 22 2003 - 22:38:15 GMT