[MD] In and out of intellect.

[Joseph Maurer]

On Tuesday 2 December 2008 12;15 AM BO writes to Group:

Group.
 
Recently I received a letter from Mati (Palm-Leis) about a dubious
aspect of my interpretation of the MOQ. I hope Mati won't mind my
sharing this. 
 
>From one of my posts:
> > My reply to Andrè said something about the MOQ as a "next
> > step". Even if not a static level it assumes a level-like
> > quality in its effort to free itself from intellect.
> > This resembles intellect's effort to free itself from
> > "society" and yet isn't fully comparable because the MOQ must
> > be understood lest it will just undermine intellect (without
> > relegating it its lawful role as the highest static good).
 
Mati:
> This is the real catch 22, as you wrote to Marsha,
 
> > "You may be a Buddhist and feel all right with such "wisdom" but
> > as Westerns steeped in SOM (what becomes the 4th. level in the
> > MOQ) we demand an objective approach to things  and are -
> > likewise - bound todeem your approach as woolly nonsense."
 
Mati:
> We are steeped in SOM it was the practice of reason that freed
> itself the social order of things.
 
I interpret the catch to be this: If I equalize SOM's replacing Aretê (in
ZAMM) with the 4th. level replacing the 3rd. and if it was (as Mati says)
"the practice of reason" that did the trick and if reason is involved in the
"MOQ out of intellect" something sounds wrong, I agree this  far but ....
 
All levels began by a pattern of the parent level acting as the vehicle
flight away from its last confinement. Regrettable Pirsig only offers one
example, namely the element carbon as the vehicle out of the inorganic
level.  Then let's go directly to the social-intellectual transition and ask
what social pattern came to be the social "carbon" that built intellect?
 
To be pedantic one must realize that carbon is inorganic although part of
all all biological patterns, consequently the social "carbon" will be social
even if part of all intellectual patterns. This is in accordance with
Pirsig's in the Paul Turner letter
 
   When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much
   clarity can be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower
   levels. Just as every biological pattern is also inorganic, but
   not all inorganic patterns are biological; and just as every
   social level is also biological, although not all biological
   patterns are social; SO EVERY INTELLECTUAL PATTERN IS SOCIAL
   ALTHOUGH NOT ALL SOCIAL PATTERNS ARE INTELLECTUAL (my caps)
 
... meaning that all intellectual patterns are made from a social building
block which will remain social. And as I see it language fills this role, in
itself it is social yet dynamic enough to be the carrier of intellect's
patterns. The latter I called REASON in my "expression" list, but no such
design exists in any of Pirsig's work
 
Mati: 
> But answer this, both SOM and MOQ utilize reason to free itself
> from its former level, given that fact, by what basis does the
> reason clearly delineate MOQ from SOM and does that delineate
> itself a kin to SOM practice of reason?
 
Mati's use of reason seems to be INTELLIGENCE (that perhaps was
the biological "carbon" that built society?) what intellect adapted in its
turn for its own evolution from the rudimentary start with the Greeks to a
complexity that spawned the intellectual "building block" for the MOQ. What
this is I haven't yet fathomed, perhaps the hyper-intellect of  Phaedrus? Or
his Quality Idea which emerged as an intellectual pattern, but "took off on
a purpose of its own".
 
Oops, did this application of Pirsigs "carbon" model inadvertently
resolve our quandary? The intellectual "carbon" that built the MOQ is
the Quality Idea and this is intellectual and will remain intellectual, but
the  MOQ itself.....??
 
Enough
 
Bo
 

Hi Bo, Mati and all,

An interesting discussion.  As a plumber I want to ask how?  Once the
egg-cell wall is penetrated for reproduction, I envision a weakness in the
cell-wall. The carbon carrying consciousness goes through the rupture and
replicates into the social level. Then, the carbon carrying self-awareness
goes through the rupture made by consciousness and replicates into the
intellectual level.   Then, the two carbons can further evolve through hard
self-directed discipline-work to enlightenment into a higher social, and
higher intellectual awareness within the cell but are not passed on in
reproduction, and are only available through enlightened self-discipline,
heroes!  

 

Joe



On 12/2/08 12:15 AM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

> Group.
> 
> Recently I received a letter from Mati (Palm-Leis) about a dubious
> aspect of my interpretation of the MOQ. I hope Mati won't mind my
> sharing this. 
>  
>> From one of my posts:
>>> My reply to Andrè said something about the MOQ as a "next step". Even if
>>> not a static level it assumes a level-like quality in its effort to free
>>> itself from intellect. This resembles intellect's effort to free itself
>>> from "society" and yet isn't fully comparable because the MOQ must be
>>> understood lest it will just undermine intellect (without relegating it
>>> its lawful role as the highest static good).
> 
> Mati:
>> This is the real catch 22, as you wrote to Marsha,
> 
>>> "You may be a Buddhist and feel all right with such "wisdom" but as
>>> Westerns steeped in SOM (what becomes the 4th. level in the MOQ) we
>>> demand an objective approach to things  and are - likewise - bound to
>>> deem your approach as woolly nonsense."
> 
> Mati:
>> We are steeped in SOM it was the practice of reason that freed itself the
>> social order of things.
> 
> I interpret the catch to be this: If I equalize SOM's replacing Aretê (in
> ZAMM) with the 4th. level replacing the 3rd. and if it was (as Mati says)
> "the practice of reason" that did the trick and if reason is involved in
> the "MOQ out of intellect" something sounds wrong, I agree this  far
> but ....  
> 
> All levels began by a pattern of the parent level acting as the vehicle
> for DQ's flight away from its last confinement. Regrettable Pirsig only
> offers one example, namely the element carbon as the vehicle out of
> the inorganic level.  Then let's go directly to the social-intellectual
> transition and ask what social pattern came to be the social "carbon"
> that built intellect?
> 
> To be pedantic one must realize that carbon is inorganic although part
> of all all biological patterns, consequently the social "carbon" will be
> social even if part of all intellectual patterns. This is in accordance with
> Pirsig's in the Paul Turner letter
> 
>     When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much
>     clarity can be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower
>     levels. Just as every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not
>     all inorganic patterns are biological; and just as every social
>     level is also biological, although not all biological patterns are
>     social; SO EVERY INTELLECTUAL PATTERN IS SOCIAL
>     ALTHOUGH NOT ALL SOCIAL PATTERNS ARE
>     INTELLECTUAL (my caps)
> 
> ... meaning that all intellectual patterns are made from a social building
> block which will remain social. And as I see it language fills this role, in
> itself it is social yet dynamic enough to be the carrier of intellect's
> patterns. The latter I called REASON in my "expression" list,
> but no such design exists in any of Pirsig's work
>  
> Mati: 
>> But answer this, both SOM and MOQ utilize reason to free itself from
>> its former level, given that fact, by what basis does the reason
>> clearly delineate MOQ from SOM and does that delineate itself a kin to
>> SOM practice of reason?
> 
> Mati's use of reason seems to be INTELLIGENCE (that perhaps was
> the biological "carbon" that built society?) what intellect adapted in its
> turn for its own evolution from the rudimentary start with the Greeks to
> a complexity that spawned the intellectual "building block" for the
> MOQ. What this is I haven't yet fathomed, perhaps the hyper-intellect
> of  Phaedrus? Or his Quality Idea which emerged as an intellectual
> pattern, but "took off on a purpose of its own".
> 
> Oops, did this application of Pirsigs "carbon" model inadvertently
> resolve our quandary? The intellectual "carbon" that built the MOQ is
> the Quality Idea and this is intellectual and will remain intellectual, but
> the  MOQ itself.....??
> 
> Enough
> 
> Bo