[MD] S/O intellect stifles the MOQ

[Heather Perella]

First I started with this intuitive sense that this
hammering away, especially by Bo, that intellect is
S/O is wrong.  To continually state intellect is S/O
is to stifle any further understanding of what the MoQ
is possible of.  For starters, there is not One Truth.
 To staticly draw up these delineating lines of S and
then O, but then to say well, the MoQ is above S/O
intellect, but S/O intellect is the only intellect
leaves no room for the MoQ to be intellectualized. 
Bo, I know intellect to you is not just thinking, but
I know of 4 four static levels.  One is called
intellectual level.  Then what else other than these
static levels is called dynamic quality.  To say the
MoQ is above these static levels is to only talk about
dynamic quality.  Anything we mention about dq is said
with static quality, for dq can't be defined. 
Recently Bo has mentioned that the SQ/DQ level is some
kind of semi-static level, but if you can't find this
in ones mind, ones social life, biological, and
inorganic then what is it?  But these Mind, social,
etc... have been defined as static quality.  To be
able to intellectualize is not merely oh, this is
subject and this is object, let's divide.  That's
called SOM.  How one gets around this SOM is to go
beyond the divisions.  S/O thinking is being stuck in
a view of reality called SOM.  S/O intellectualizing
will only allow one to intellectualize about SOM.  How
this is not understood, I have not a clue.  The SODV
paper clearly helps, but Bo has thrown this away.  Bo
holds onto the romantic/classic split, but we're
talking about Amerindians and vision quests, and the
mystics see this first, well, that's what Pirsig says.
 To hold onto S/O thinking is to hold onto what Pirsig
threw away.  S/O thinking helps, but to
intellectualize S/O will not move one on to the next
step which is how many truths, many ways to
philosophize, the source of all is the barrier to
cross.  To hold onto S/O is not to look outside the
box, and so is to think one has found the Holy Grail. 
The Holy Grail can't be found by one particular way. 
To narrowly think S/O is the very problem that the MoQ
is present to overcome.  I know quotes may not tell
the whole story, but here are some quotes from Lila. 
Please, what different interpretations might anybody
have?  How does each person view these quotes in
relation to MoQ, Quality, S/O, classic/romantic split,
the intellect, and Amerindians.  Concerning the first
quote intellectualizing is where explanations happen,
not just solely S/O explanation for Pirsig rid this
divide with static/dynamic explanations, thus,
static/dynamic intellectualizing.  It's time to move
on to the next step.  It's time to intellectualize
static/dynamic quality, and not be stuck
intellectualizing S/O.  Please, everybody provide
feedback to help clear the air on these issues.  These
are important issues that any newcomer to the MoQ
would want full participation by many so clear
understandings as to the very way one is to discuss on
this forum without some stifling the intellectual
domain.


Taken from Lila (Ch. 8) as follows:

     "This may sound as though a purpose of the
Metaphysics of Quality is to trash all subject-object
thought but that's not true. Unlike subject-object
metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist
on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects
are held to be the ultimate reality then we're
permitted only one construction of things - that which
corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other
constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence
is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes
possible for more than one set of truths to exist.
Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' One seeks
instead the highest quality intellectual explanation
of things with the knowledge that if the past is any
guide to the future this explanation must be taken
provisionally; as useful until something better comes
along. One can then examine intellectual realities the
same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, not
with an effort to find out which one is the 'real'
painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are
of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality
in existence and we can perceive some to have more
quality than others, but that we do so is, in part,
the result of our history and current patterns of
values."

     Here is another quote from Lila (Ch. 9) as
follows:

     "Trying to create a perfect metaphysics is like
trying to create a perfect chess strategy, one that
will win every time. You can't do it. It's out of the
range of human capability. No matter what position you
take on a metaphysical question someone will always
start masking questions that will lead to more
positions that lead to more questions in this endless
intellectual chess game. The game is supposed to stop
when it is agreed that a particular line of reasoning
is illogical. This is supposed to be similar to a
checkmate. But conflicting positions go on for
centuries without any such checkmate being agreed
upon.
Phsdrus had spent an enormous amount of time following
what turned out to be lousy openings. A particularly
large amount of this time had been spent trying to lay
down a first line of division between the classic and
romantic aspects of the universe he'd emphasized in
his first book. In that book his purpose had been to
show how Quality could unite the two. But the fact
that Quality was the best way of uniting the two was
no guarantee that the reverse was true - that the
classic-romantic split was the best way of dividing
Quality. It wasn't. For example, American Indian
mysticism is the same platypus in a world divided
primarily into classic and romantic patterns as under
a subject-object division. When an American Indian
goes into isolation and fasts in order to achieve a
vision, the vision he seeks is not a romantic
understanding of the surface beauty of the world.
Neither is it a vision of the world's classic
intellectual form. It is something else. Since this
whole metaphysics had started with an attempt to
explain Indian mysticism Phaedrus finally abandoned
this classic-romantic split as a choice for a primary
division of the Metaphysics of Quality."


     [This whole metaphyiscs started to explain Indian
mysticism - rid the stifling classic-romantic split. 
Rid S/O ONLY intellect.]


     "In a subject-object metaphysics morals and art
are worlds apart, morals being concerned with the
subject quality and art with object quality. But in
the Metaphysics of Quality that division doesn't
exist. They're the same. They both become much more
intelligible when references to what is subjective and
what is objective are completely thrown away and
references to what is static and what is Dynamic are
taken up instead."


Oneness,
SA

P.S.      [Merriam-Webster]  stifle; verb - 1 a : to
kill by depriving of oxygen : SUFFOCATE b (1) :
SMOTHER (2) : MUFFLE
2 a : to cut off (as the voice or breath) b : to
withhold from circulation or expression : REPRESS
<stifled our anger> c : DETER, DISCOURAGE
intransitive verb : to become suffocated by or as if
by lack of oxygen : SMOTHER <stifling in the heat> 

P.S.S.  The taste of tea has a carrier called oxygen. 
This is why cold water is recommend in the brewing
process.  The colder the water the higher the oxygen. 
Certain teas such as white and green are not to be
brewed with boiling water.  This stifles the taste. 
Boiling water is ridding oxygen, therefore,
suffocating taste.  A static quality of tea is taste,
which I would say involves the code of art where
dynamic quality is flowing afresh with each taste,
thus, the quality of the tea event is ever more
wondrous.  


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097