[MD] In and out of intellect.

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

[Chris]
> Even though I don't agree with Bodvar on the point of SOM being
> synonymous with the intellectual level, I do share his view that
> looking at SOM (and for that matter all philosophy and subsequent
> science that developed in the western world) as something that usurped
> and suppressed a Quality Understanding? - is wrong.


>Bo:
> "Beggars can't be choosers" so thanks for these crumbs ;-)? but may I
> ask you (too) for examples of patterns you deem Q-intellectual and not
> S/O-based. And also how you explain Pirsig's in the P.T. letter about
> not convenient to speak about Q-intellect before the Greeks, and -
> finally - the LILA quote about Q-intellect not having transcended Q-
> society at Homer's time. All pointing to SOM=Q-Intellect.?

Laozi:

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnameable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding. "


This. And many other things around this world through the ages is all aimed 
at understanding.
It is clearly a pattern since we can see it and talk about it. And what it 
is aimed at, motivated by, must be the intellectual level or it's core 
value. Understanding.  In places other than Europe, and in other thought 
traditions, the path to understanding may not have been as rigid as the SOM 
one that produced Immanuel Kant, but both he (in his incredible boorishness) 
and Dogen Zenji where both motivated by they same thing - the same value.


I think.

Regards

Chris