[MD] New Age++

[ian glendinning]

Bo's intellect is as static as static comes.
Now we know his problem :-)

Bo, please stop accusing me of "fetching notions from" other people,
being an acolyte. My notions are my notions, arising from my
experience. If they concur with others so be it.

Ian

On 1/19/06, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Ian and Marsha
>
> 17 Jan. Ian said to Marsha who had said:
>
> > > "It's been about his journey:  it's isolation,  it's arduousness, it's
> > > cost, and the gift he received to bring back to his culture. Mr. Pirsig
> > > is not a child of the Intellectual Level.  He is a child of Dynamic
> > > Quality."
>
> > How very true.
> > We're all children of all the levels, intellect included (because he
> > wrote a book and we're exchanging e-mails, if for no other reason). An
> > important thing here is the same debate I'm having with Bo about
> > "static" intellect.
>
> "How true" you say, but don't you see that Marsha says that
> Pirsig (meaning the MOQ) is NOT a child of the intellectual level
> but of DQ (meaning that the MOQ has transcended intellect).
>
> > Dynamic Quality is ultimately nothing without its static latches,
> but
> > its the dynamism that adds new value. The dynamism of intellect is to
> > be open to alternative intellectual viewpoints and views from within
> > completely different worlds. We need to be careful not to paint
> > intellect into a static SOMist corner, but to have it evolve, with all
> > the value of myth and direct experience. Most of that dynamism is a
> > process, a journey, a dialogue, an ongoing narrative. (See Matt's
> > comment on the Baggini interview.)
>
> I do of course agree with you that we are of all levels included
> intellect, but ..."not paint intellect into a SOMist corner" is rubbish.
> Intellect is a static level, no? Thus it must be painted into some
> static corner and SOM is where it belongs because it is SOM
> minus "M". What is MOQ's opponent other than SOM meaning
> that S/O becomes intellectual VALUE in the system that replaced
> it.
>
> Before the MOQ there was no "static intellectual level" only
> SOM's mind, a mental faculty that contained all ideas since
> mankind began to "think" and this is the kind of intellect some (no
> names) obviously want to introduce into the MOQ, but I refuse to
> believe that you can go on peddling this notion of the - again -
> STATIC intellectual level.
>
> > Intellect is not static - it's dynamic - it just has some static
> > patterns within it - that we need to pay respect to, but not get hung
> > on.
>
> Intellect dynamic?! If you have fetched that notion from Matt
> Kundert so God help the MOQ. Intellect is as static as static
> comes!  OK we have our discussion going elsewhere so enough
> for now.
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>