[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, Andre, John, All.

Mary to John:
> > I think you can draw the upper boundary of intellectual patterning at
> > the point where the subject meets the object - where the subjective
> > rubber meets the objective road. ....

Mary, please, the blockage to understanding the MOQ is this SOM 
residues of a subject "in there" meeting a real objects "out there". This 
is only valid on the intellectual level, one must cross over to MOQ's 
meta-level to see the right context. The "subject meeting the object" 
argument had its merit in ZAMM when Phaedrus stood with one foot 
in SOM and the other probing for some unknown ground beyond.

> > I think the limit of the intellectual
> > level stops at the point where we try to conceptualize anything in terms
> > other than subjects and objects.  

Well, that's right, and the MOQ is all about "conceptualizing " a 
DQ/SQ reality, the trouble is that "conceptualizing" is supposed to 
take place in the subjective mind and if the MOQ only resides inside 
the subjective mind it will never make it out of SOM. 

> > This is why I am almost 99% in
> > Bodvar's Intellectual Level = SOM camp at this point. Give me one
> > example where you are able to conceptualize anything without
> > presupposing a viewer and a viewed and I will probably be able to say
> > that is an example of transcending the Intellectual Level to enter the
> > realm of pre-intellectual awareness - otherwise known as Quality.  What
> > do you think?    

This argument about the impossibility of "conceptualizing" anything 
without the subject (the viewer) is playing straight into SOM's hand 
and John (the kindergarten) and Andre (the apostate) gladly grabbed 
it. One must - as Pirsig at his best does - point to the paradoxes the 
conceptualizing subject/conceptual reality creates. This is after all 
what the MOQ is supposed to repair, and what IT ONLY CAN 
REPAIR IN THE SOL INTERPRETATION.  When Pirsig's corrupted 
intellect failed to dissolve the praradoxes (the mind/matter for 
instance) he got all sore and started about the SOM not being 
important and the MOQ "setting sail" without SOM. Grrrrrr!!! The 
MOQ created SOM and it must find its place inside the MOQ

Bodvar



















Andre:
> Hi Mary and John,
> The 'one example' are too many... Phaedrus' experience with the
> Indians, the entire Oriental philosophical tradition where direct
> experience was accepted, unequivocally and intellectual patterning
> took place, instead of (in the West) theoretical postulates were
> formed from which intellectual patterning took place etc etc.(typical
> scientific S/O divisions)

> Bodvar argues that this (Oriental,direct experience) approach is
> 'wooly' that in some way 'the Orient' MUST have gone through some sort
> of S/O stage...and even worse that because they appear not to have
> 'gone through' the Western SOM stage they are somehow wanting,
> lacking...( wooly) not ready for the big Quality breakthrough, the big
> Quality appreciation.
> 
> This is quite a claim to make and, in my view very short sighted.
> 
> You also say that: 'I think you can draw the upper boundary of
> intellectual patterning at the point where the subject meets the
> object - where the subjective rubber meets the objective road.
> 
> I really like the analogy but why should this herald the 'upper
> boundary' of the intellectual level? The intellectual level holds
> tools...sign manipulation tools. Mr. Pirsig has not only expanded the
> tools but also the signs.
> 
> 'Transcending the intellectual level' ...what does that mean? Like
> shutting it out for a while...experience something... and then return
> to it to linguistically convey your experience?
> 
> Imho
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Andre
> 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/
> 
> 
>