From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Jan 26 2004 - 20:43:57 GMT
On 25 Jan 04 10:28 AM Mati writes to Paul:
Mati previously said:
When we talk about defining the "Mind" or "consciousness" related to the
mind then, there seems to be distorted faith related to SOM.
Paul:
In the MOQ, mind and consciousness are just one level of patterns
created by value. Do you think the existence of thoughts depends on
faith?
Mati: Yes, when those thought patterns are based on the precepts of SOM.
Pirsig notes in regards to the fictitious "man", "Like 'substance' they
can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms for
collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of
their own." Lila 178. When we refer to the "Mind" in such a manner which
is easy to do, it leads us down the garden path back to SOM. It is also
this SOM manner that leads us to what I referred to as the mind being
the "Mystic Apparition".
Mati previously said:
MOQ also resolves "Mystic" subjective reality into the social and
intellect.
Paul:
Why equate subjective with mystic? I don't follow this move. How are you
using the term "mystic"?
Hi Mati, Paul, Bo, and others:
Musings on your conversation.
joe: IMO for there to be objective or subjective classes of distinct things,
'existence' has to be divided into real and intentional existence.
Objective reality and Mind, Will in an individual soul are postulated by
SOM, using the above division of existence. SOM implies two separate worlds
interacting at the same point from different moral structures in the same
individual. Two separate universes is an interesting proposal, and not
easily dismissed.
Pirsig saw that evolution could explain the different levels in a moral way.
He could obtain the same understanding as SOM with fewer problems by
eliminating the word 'existence' by substituting the word 'value'.
Intentional and real value are equal in value. Interpret the statement "God
exists!" in terms of value, and quit arguing. Two questions: Are
intentional values a mystic knowledge obtained by following a particular
discipline, the mythos? Are real values the moral order?
The Mythos enables actions for individuals. Other questions: is there a
different mythos for each individual? What determines the individual? What
is the 'value' of intentional intellect? Do I control my goals?
In the moral order value is inorganic, organic, social, or intellectual. I
prefer the word 'existence'. Can I divide existence? The existence of the
inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual orders is the same yet
differentiated. DQ 'Value' seems to be a more patterned term than
'existence.' SQ There is much that is obscure in the dq sq relationship.
If there is a dividing line tetween the moral orders, then, it would seem
that 'more or less' applies. I don't suddenly jump the line between moral
orders, rather the one grows out of the other. The fuzziness of the line of
evolution cannot be put under a microscope! Does seeing that line define
the intellectual order? In me, an individual sentient, the dq lines of the
moral orders are combined in my individual dq. And, then, I, the
individual, have an awareness which keeps the dynamic of each of the moral
orders separate, since I am able to artistically manipulate patterns to DQ.
Do I define the intellectual order as that separation of my individuality
and my awareness? The intelligence in an individual resists patterning
since it is in the way I exist that I qualify as a sentient.
Joe
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 Jan 26 2004 - 20:45:11 GMT