[MD] The intellectual pattern of truth

[skutvik at online.no]

Ron

Goodness knows why I bother with you and your endless objections 
and questions that - regardless of how many times I explain - you 
repeat in some new form.
  
20 June:

I had said that I don't seek any self-help manual, but an convincing 
explanation of existence

> > Improve lives sounds very NewAgeish. With me a convincing explanation of
> > existence goes a long way, and with the MOQ I found such an explanation
> > for the first time. 

Ron:
> But you render that explaination an s/o explaination, as any
> intellectual explaination. 

If writing is "intellectual" how can anything conveyed by language be 
non-intellectual? The 4th. static level is S/O, there you are right for 
once - possibly inadvertently  - but it has nothing specially  to do with  
language or thinking or what SOM calls "mental".  

> This really doesent change anything then. The old explaination is just
> as convincing, even more so since you yourself claim that it is the
> highest static pattern. 

It's hard to reach you. The old explanation was SOM i.e. the S/O 
schism as IT REALLY IS, meaning that the distance between 
ourselves as subject and objective reality wasn't just great, it was 
UNBRIDGEABLE, two universes. Whatever philosophy, theory or 
explanation there existed or would come to be would be "in here", the 
real world "out there" would be as indifferent and unaffected as it - still 
according to SOM - had been from eternity and would remain to 
eternity.         

Then this mysterious Robert Pirsig who said that SOM was a "fall-out" 
of a greater reality and further pointed to its time of falling out, namely  
with the Greeks. This was my "Road to Damascus" experience, finally 
was the Mind/Matter spell broken and all those philosophers whose 
books I had browsed without finding this so obvious and convincing 
solution, they  were at once midgets compared to Pirsig.

LILA and it partly abolishing the one and only SOLution I won't go into 
here 
   

> SOL allows only ONE explaination, the objective one. 

SOL is the assertion that intellect is the subject/object distinction, this 
so for the reason that that was Phaedrus' (of ZAMM) breathtaking 
assertion. Regarding the MOQ it had to use SOM's own objective 
strength (with which it had broken the social level's power) to make it 
out of SOM and - after that - make both objective and subjective (the 
distinction that is!!!!) into its own static intellectual level. It's an elegant, 
seamless "inside out turn of the metaphysical sock". But you bugs who 
never felt uncomfortable inside SOM's confinement - never knew it as 
confinement - will of course bemoan the whole operation.    

Please read before throwing yourself at the keyboard.

Bodvar