[MD] In and out of intellect.
Joseph Maurer
jhmau at sbcglobal.net
Fri Dec 5 13:14:31 PST 2008
On Thursday 4 December 2008 11:27 PM Bo writes to Joe:
Hi Plumber Joe (finally we know who this person is ;-)
2 Dec. you wrote:
... that I had written :
> > 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 .snip ... (the whole post below)
Joe:
> 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!
We may agree on many things Joe, but about consciousness/awareness I
hesitate - at least in a MOQ context. This is of course supposed to be the
"self...." kind and I will try my eternal quiz on you.We know that almost
all creatures sleep, thus when an animal wakes up it must be to a state
different from oblivion. Is this state a weaker version of the human
"selfconsciousness" (nineteenth century thinkers spoke about "slumber").
Animals are known for their alertness and do not slumber. Please address
this issue before going on it seems to be much like Phaedrus' "hot stove"
insight that obviously launched him om his Q-track, but no one seems to
understand. I have tried the "sleep" question on a lot of people without
receiving a single response.
Till then
Bo
Hi Bo and All,
A wonderful question. Does a rock sleep? It is worn smooth by the brook. It
is melted by volcanic action. It flies into space from volcanic explosions.
A rock sleeps underground, and is awakened by the erosion in the riverbed.
Sunlight warms it and makes it grow beyond its boundaries. Freezing water
is irresistible and it splits.
Sleep is a state of being. My bones are awake while my consciousness
sleeps! Does a single cell have different functions? Conscious cells sleep
and re-supply their energy base in order to operate at full capacity. What
if they haven¹t been trained in how to operate? Then, they know only sleep
or awake! Nothing in between, like when to rest for a greater challenge.
To rest and to sleep, are not the same. Life needs time to recharge when
its full capabilities are required for action. Partial use of a cell¹s
capabilities mimics a state of sleep. And so the analogy: ³He was asleep
when he said that!² He was not awake to his full possibilities.
IMO sleep represents a state of existence, not a state of awareness, where
the capabilities of the individual sleeping are curtailed. Sleep, then is a
possibly temporary state of being unresponsive to natural events. As
awareness is responsive to change, sleep is not responsive to change.
But, Bo, it is your question. Do you sleep? What does it mean that you
sleep? Are you always operating at full attention, or do you nod
occasionally? I can¹t describe the inner workings of cells! I am not a
cell. It takes one to know one.
Joe
On 12/4/08 11:27 PM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Hi Plumber Joe (finally we know who this person is ;-)
>
> 2 Dec. you wrote:
>
> ... that I had written :
>
>>> 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 .snip ... (the whole post below)
>
> Joe:
>
>> 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!
>
> We may agree on many things Joe, but about
> consciousness/awareness I hesitate - at least in a MOQ context. This
> is of course supposed to be the "self...." kind and I will try my eternal
> quiz on you.We know that almost all creatures sleep, thus when an
> animal wakes up it must be to a state different from oblivion. Is this
> state a weaker version of the human "selfconsciousness" (nineteenth
> century thinkers spoke about "slumber") Animals are known for their
> alertness and do not slumber. Please address this issue before going
> on it seems to be much like Phaedrus' "hot stove" insight that
> obviously launched him om his Q-track, but no one seems to
> understand. I have tried the "sleep" question on a lot of people without
> receiving a single response.
>
> Till then
>
> Bo
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
> 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/
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list