[MD] mystical awareness and intellectual explantions

[MarshaV]

At 02:39 AM 3/4/2007, Bo wrote:
>Hi Marsha
>
>2 March you quoted:
>
> > At 03:25 AM 3/2/2007, Bo wrote:
> > >However the MOQ does not fit this. In it the overall picture
> > >belongs to the meta-level above its own static range, and in that
> > >picture SOM is intellectual "bogus" out of social "bogus" ...and so
> > >on downwards. All static levels are "bogus", only the DQ/SQ dualism
> > >is not.
>
>and added:
>
> > Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering about the last sentence in the
> > above paragraph.  Do you mean the DQ/sq split is absolute?
>
>Any time Marsha. Yes, I see the DQ/SQ as absolute. I discussed
>this with Heather who insisted on DQ as the only thing, with SQ
>(in her words) mere metaphors. I used the ocean/wave example
>where the difference between the two is what counts. Water and
>ice may also be an example. SQ is made of the same dynamic
>"stuff", yet it's their static quality that sets them apart from the
>dynamic (amorphous) background.

Absolute?  Does absolute mean nonchanging?  Even ice is in a constant 
state of change.  To me, spovs are primarily simple to complex 
clusters of other spovs.  Some are very active on the 'leading edge', 
but all are in varying degrees of change.


> > Are SPOVs nonchanging?
>
>The static range has changed from inorganic to intellectual, but
>each level does not change once it is transcended, the Q-
>evolution pulls up the ladder behind itself. Pirsig speaks about the
>extreme stability of inorganic patterns, but all levels are stable.
>Instability is only at the (at any time) "leading edge". If for
>instance (forgive my morbidity) all life on earth went extinct, the
>leading edge would move back to  where it once was, namely at
>the inorganic level .... on the earth that is, on a planet elsewhere
>the social level may be where the action is.

It sounds correct that an Earth sans humans would be without Social 
and Intellectual Levels.  And there could be planets elsewhere very 
social active.   But are you suggesting that there can be nothing new 
in a particular level?  No new social institutions?  No new 
organisms?   That seems going way too far.


> > And what of the DQ/sq split from a nonhuman perspective?
>
>This turns into a MOQ introduction course. Look, the notion that
>everything is from a human-perspective (a subject making up
>theories about an ineffable reality) IS THE VERY SOM, and it
>looks inescapable. There simply is no nonhuman perspective
>...inside SOM.

True.



>Yet, the MOQ is supposed to have replace SOM as the ultimate
>perspective , thus Phaedrus must have seen a way out of the
>closed S/O loop. Where did he find an opening? He found it in
>the Quality concept that refused to let itself be trapped in either
>category and made him up-end reality with the  "Quality the
>creator of both subjects and objects".

"Phaedrus must have seen"?  Seen?  Seen and/or thought?  "Quality 
concept"?  Concept?  Quality, the experience before thought, the 
creator of subjects and objects.


>NB)
>Things possibly BEGAN with the Quality concept, not with P.
>speculated about ways to escape the S/O loop, he knew of no
>SOM, but the result is the same.
>
>Everything were turned inside-out: The Quality is not "inside the
>human perspective" (subjective), rather the "human
>perspective/God's Eye perspective" (S/O) is inside Quality's
>realm.

Does Quality define and explain itself?  Does it write books and 
letters?   The moment the MOQ is explained, it becomes 
intellectualized static quality.  Yes, no, and all of the above?



>The first fall-out of this realization was that there is a SOM. You
>can scan all philosophy books without finding such a concept
>before Pirsig. The next was the need for a SOM replacement and
>he began to look for the first fundamental split something that
>resulted in the Romantic/Classic proto.moq.

Concepts, all concepts.  Analogy, all analogy.  I understand there is 
only Quality, but when you're at that level it is empty, nothing to 
conceptualize, nothing to say.



> >  Is there a DQ/sq split that is other than an intellectual split?
>
>I have refrained from Pirsig-bashing till now, but his failure to see
>the obvious, namely that the intellectual level=SOM is the one
>fault that robs the MOQ of all explanatory and other power. The
>term "intellect" seems to have acquired the content of being
>thinking itself, but my dictionary defines it (with a little help) as
>the ability to distinguish between what's subjective and what's
>objective.

Isn't 'with a little help' like manipulating data?



>So if you accept the above conclusion from ZMM that Quality is
>above, prior to, the origin of ... etc. the "human/non-human" (S/O)
>distinction

Quality is the origin of everything.


>  and - further - that it (the S/O distinction) becomes the
>static value of the 4th. level, then the DQ/SQ split certainly is
>"other than intellectual",

It seems to me that the S/O distinction is one way of discriminating 
within the Intellectual Level.  I thought others have pointed to 
other nondualistic ways of thinking.


>  the MOQ now has intellect as a static
>level (something that ought to be obvious) not the other way
>round.

The MOQ does have the subject/object perspective as static quality, 
not the other way around.



> > See, this is what I don't understand?  Are you using your intellect to
> > explain what is outside of intellect?
>
>I would say "using my intelligence",  the term "intellect" has by
>now - for me - become the 4th. level and I'm incapable of
>returning to it ... to SOM.
>
>You may balk: Quality is a mere concept and because language
>is a human phenomenon the MOQ does not escape the human
>perspective, but if so you are still "embedded" in SOM, and sees
>the MOQ as just another (subjective) theory and Quality as the
>(objective) ineffable reality beyond. This is merely a more
>complicated SOM and has zero explanatory power.

Yes it is true that, as long as I am using a Western language, I am 
partially embedded in SOM.  I've mentioned before I see the MOQ 
representing a dynamic, pre-intellectual, experience of reality, and 
the theory that explains that perspective.


>Finally. There are many places in ZMM and LILA where Pirsig
>speaks of Quality being outside any definition or subdivision -
>that the MOQ is just another intellectualization - but this is the
>very source of all problems.
>

It is not a problem for me.  The experience it is outside of the 
realm of talking about it, and talking about it is outside the realm 
of experiencing it.  That seems simple and obvious.

Bo, this is all just my opinion. I really don't know anything.  I, at 
least, know that much.

Marsha