[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[Heather Perella]

Jim,

     [Jim]
>   In spite of this Pirsig repeatedly - inadvertently
> - returns to his initial correct insight and
> presents intellect as the S/O divide alone. He says
> that he saw no need to define intellect, everybody
> know what it means and my dictionary says: "The
> power of the mind to reason contrasted with feeling
> and instincts". "Mind" can be omitted without losing
> any meaning and because reason is objectivity itself
> and feeling is subjectivity itself .. intellect is
> the S/O distinction. What screws it all up is the
> notion of a mind doing the intellectualization,
> while it's intellect that does the
> mind/matter-ization. 

     Can you please explain this?  Not quite sure what
this is saying.  What do you mean that intellect is
the S/O distinction?  Thus, having intellect I'll
always have this S/O distinction?  Not really
understanding that.  When I walk in the woods, my
experience is the woods, not me and then these woods. 
I could surely think that way, but when I walk,
listen, and even intellectualize I don't see how this
HAS to be just me and then those woods out there have
nothing to do, at all, with my intellectualizing.  It
seems the whole experience, even the intellectualizing
is the woods and I'm listening.  Who's listening?  The
woods are.  Who am I on this walk?  

     I am this:  

     A bird flying by as autumn leaves
          rustle beneath these feet.
     Oh, look, the deer is quietly standing up.

Please explain.  Thanks,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates 
(http://voice.yahoo.com)