[MD] mystical awareness and intellectual explantions

[Ron Kulp]

Mr. Skutvik,
I was touring your web page and reading your work, I appreciate your
painting style by the way 
 the impressionistic realism evokes mood and atmosphere with your
masterful brush strokes,
I'd like to know more about your thoughts regarding the cow, you mention
something about
Animals being imortal because they are not able to percieve death. If I
may ask, could you
Expand on this?
Thank you
-x

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of skutvik at online.no
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:48 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] mystical awareness and intellectual explantions

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



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/