[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Mary]

Hello Mati,

I'm getting the impression we are saying the same thing, just using
different descriptive words for it.

- Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of KAYE PALM-LEIS
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 4:26 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium

Hi Mary,

> I too have a problem with all definitions of the Intellectual level I have
> heard.  For me, it is nothing more than an attitude allowing one to
question
> the strictures of the Social level, and thus allow for more creative
> thinking.

Mati: Ok then there is yet another definition.  A definition like this
for personal consumption is ok, but this to me is about cracking a
code or defining of values.  For the most part the code has been crack
with MoQ so very well.  The question is about cracking the code of
intellect.  And for me personally MoQ makes perfect sense up to
intellect. When I personally approach Pirsig on this matter a number
of years ago, he suggest that this was a futile effort.  So was the
issue of the seemingly futile process of defining Quality after ZAMM
was written yet he managed to give us MoQ.  Pirsig unfortunately has
been a victim of his own success.  He has managed to give us so many
of the answers to the important questions he has raised.  Yet with
intellect he has fallen short.  Based on face value the s/o split as
the basis for intellect seems to defy an inate understanding of who we
are, in large part of SOM influence about that understanding.. To be
honest it took several years until I was able to totally understand
and accept Bo was really saying.

>There was plenty of thinking going on before the Greeks, as there
> is plenty of it going on in the Social level today (religion and
politics).
> I have a problem with Bo's definition as the S/O split.  To me, this is
very
> fundamental.  Doesn't a dog see itself as separate from its master?  The
S/O
> split is a byproduct of the ego.  If I am "I" and you are "you", then we
> have an automatic S/O split right there.  The only types of brains that
> would not see the world this way are those that do not have a personal
> consciousness, right?

Mati: Yeah I went down this trail and many others to really understand
that they are dead ends.  You suggest that a dog has consciousness,
true.  But its consciousness is only biological at best.  We teach
them tricks, we call their name, we give them hugs and interact with
them, we in some cases suggest they are one of the family.  Yup the
dog see his master, but he doesn't define himself as himself, he just
is.  He exist and strives to exist to have his needs met and as a
social creature to interact with others, but only on a biological
level.  Though it precieves objects it does not define them, beyond
what he can precieve on a biological basis.

Respectfully,
Mati
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/