[MD] mystical awareness and intellectual explantions

[skutvik at online.no]

Dear Marsha 

On 5 Mar. you quoted yours sincerely:

> > Yes, I see the DQ/SQ as absolute.... snip. 

> Absolute?  Does absolute mean nonchanging?  Even ice is in a constant
> state of change....

I think you miss the very point of the Dynamic/Static dualism. It's 
fundamental but also fundamentally different from the S/O and 
thereby it reconciliates ourselves with our world. Regarding the 
water/ice metaphor there exists no intermediate state between 
the two. In ZAMM P. uses crystalization as an example of how 
the Quality Idea formed. As usual I could not find the exact 
quote, but discovered another one and this may help you see that 
Phaedrus (at least) saw the Quality Idea as escaping intellect..

Phaedrus in ZMM:

    I don't think anyone really saw what he was up to at first. They saw an
    intellectual delivering a message that had all the trappings of a rational
    analysis of a teaching situation. They didn't see he had a purpose
    completely opposite to any they were used to. He wasn't furthering
    rational analysis. He was blocking it. He was turning the method of
    rationality against itself, turning it against his own kind, in defense of
    an irrational concept, an undefined entity called Quality.

> 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?

If this is to prove that everything is intellect in the MIND sense 
then you have found an absolute other than Quality and a 
Metaphysics of Intellect similar to the MOQ is called for. Can't 
you even begin to understand? Whatever is found basic, 
inescapable, where the buck stops, can be made into a 
metaphysics, but - first of all - they will have to be dynamic/static 
split, and - secondly - have the S/O divide as their 4th. level. 

And this is about all I'm going to say, my arm-length posts don't 
help much. Only this: 

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

My said dictionary definition of "Intellect" goes like this.

"Power of mind to reason, contrasted with feeling and instinct."

"Power of mind" we may omit, what's not power of mind? 
"Reason contrasted with feeling". I have an "expression" list that 
says that Intellect's expression=REASON and Society's= 
EMOTION. Reason is regarded as objective and feeling/emotion 
as subjective, thus intellect is the power of distinguishing between 
what's objective and whats subjective. I.e: THE S/O 
DISTINCTION!

 Instincts - in a MOQ context - is the biological level.

This is an interpretation, must be because the "Oxford Advanced" 
is written from SOM's premises, but not manipulation.
 
> Bo, this is all just my opinion. I really don't know anything.  I, at
> least, know that much.

Most insightful - a Metaphysics of Ignorance is possible - no 
sarcasm at all.

Bo