[MD] In and out of intellect.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Christoffer

8 Dec.you wrote:

Bo before:
> > "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.?

Chris quotes Laotse:

    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. "  

...and continues:

> 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.

You came on so strong in favor of the SOL - which IS the MOQ - but 
have undergone a gradual decline. 

What's not understanding? One may even construct a Metaphysics of 
Understanding - a MOU - dynamic/static understanding. Inorganic, 
biological, social and intellectual levels of understanding.  When Cave 
Man looked out on his world and found that the lights in the night sky 
were gods and goddesses this was SOCIAL understanding. The 
objective knowledge that these lights are stars, planets, comets, 
asteroides ...etc. is INTELLECTUAL understanding.  

What Laotse talks about is an enlarged understanding that transcends 
(what in the our lingo is) intellectual understanding and sees that 
various forms of understanding are "frozen" patterns of an "eternal 
(dynamic) understanding". Exactly what the MOQ claims only it does it 
much better than the Eastern Tradition that passed the intellectual 
level by too quickly and looks "mystical" to us.

IMO  

Bodvar