[MD] Intellect Worship

[markhsmit]

Hi,

I would like to perseverate on the Intellectual Caveman for
a second.  I would say that if a caveman were born today, 
he would grow up as a modern human being.  With such
a general statement, I am avoiding all that anthropology
stuff, like what kind of caveman, are we talking Neanderthal?
All that stuff is just theory based on a few scattered bones,
and theories change all the time.  In fact if one is enamored
with evolution, it can be said that humans have stopped evolving.
Apes are still evolving and are therefore ahead of us (this may
even be on Wikipedia, although I'm sure it would have some
political slant to it).  So apes have continued to evolve beyond
us.  But, we have those brains, oh, those wonderful brains.
Brains that cannot take the complexity of reality and simplify
it into little pieces, straight lines and circles.  But I digress

So let's just say that man's brain has not developed very much
for a long time.  The emotions and passions are pretty much the
same, as well as the intellectual ability.  But, Quality (yes, I do
get to Quality), is ever evolving.  So what is changing?  It must 
be communication.  Faster, clearer, more reliable communication
books, computer memory, all part of communication.  So a 
fundamental aspect of Quality is communication (I'm sure this is
all old stuff to you guys).  The more things interact through
dynamic quality, the more they evolve.  So is it communication
or some undefinable incomprehensible fuzzy thing?

But the fundamental ability of the brain remains the same, so
are the ideas new?  Has all this been thought of before?
I believe so.  Quality seems to have incorporated Taoism
(or Buddhism) with a splash of evolution and systems theory.
I think this is great, because it modernizes existing Eastern
knowledge, and allows us to relate to it.  My question is why
does not MOQ reference some of these well established 
philosophies, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?

I suppose increased communication is being opposed by
the amount of time we have to think.  There is no time to
sit in a cave and contemplate.  Too much to read, not 
enough time.

Gotta go watch something on TV.

Cheers,
Willblake

On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:41:36 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
From:   skutvik at online.no
Subject:    Re: [MD] Intellect Worship
Date:   October 4, 2009 1:41:36 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Mati

3 Oct. you said re. Steve's

Steve:
> > Sometimes I get the impression that the MOQ is about becoming more
> > intellectual. Intellect, as the highest static level, is too
> > revered. The top position in the static hieracrchy is seen as so
> > important that some feel the need to make the intellectual level the
> > "individual level" so that individuals can share in the reverence
> > afforded to intellect and what makes others think that the MOQ
> > itself will only itself be revered if it is put above even the
> > revered intellect. 

Mati: 
> For myself, being "intellectual" is a reflective process of the
> understanding the world around us. 

This leads to the "intellectual caveman". All human beings have had 
an understanding of "their world" since time immemorial, I'd say this 
relentless interpretation of existence is what characterizes the social 
(human being) level.

> For the most part intellectual and
> philosophizing use the same process of thinking and reflecting. 

Agree, there is a biological-based intelligence that the social and 
intellectual level in turn have exploited for their respective quality 
"sets" purpose. 

> What
> we reflect about tends to range from the meaning of life to all the
> details related and interrelated to life. Our limits of our
> understanding and the "individual level" tends to be a fallout of SOM.
> This "reverence" for intellect, from my perspective tends to be the
> level of intellect using the social level for its own purpose for
> better or for worse. Again from my perspective MOQ is valued when it
> delivers us from the limiting bonds of SOM.

As known we are (of) all levels and use our intelligence (thinking) as 
much socially and biologically as intellectual, the latter when we make 
an effort to be as impartial, calm and detached as possible shunning 
emotions and even lower impulses from interfering. 

Back to Steve's original post

> > I have news for some of you: Phaedrus is not a hero. Phaedrus is
> > Pirsig's embodiment of intellectual values as Rigel is for social
> > values, Lila is for biological values, and perhaps the boat is for
> > inorganic values. However, none of these characters represent the
> > ideal of what we should aspire to be. Instead I think the MOQ is
> > about integrating the biological, social, intellectual, and dynamic
> > aspects of ourselves rather than being dominated by intellectual
> > patterns.

> Mati: I would rewrite this to say, "Instead I think the MOQ is about
> integrating a better/clearer understanding of the biological, social,
> intellectual, and dynamic aspects of ourselves rather than being
> dominated by intellects (SOM) patterns.

Agree with Mati, only that the terms (inorganic, biological, social and 
intellectual) changes to "static patterns of quality" through the initial 
in-out turn of our metaphysical sock. The great temptation is to regard 
SOM's matter as to be MOQ's inorganic level because this leads to 
SOM's mind being MOQ's intellectual level which is the fallacy that 
still haunts us. Q-intellect has nothing to do with thinking per se, but 
about suppressing social values 

> > Consider Pirsig's description of Phasedrus in ZAMM:

> > "Some things can be said about Phædrus as an individual:

> > Snip.... Consider also the frequent comments in Lila about how
> > Phaedrus has difficulty relating to other people and wishes he were more
> > like Dusenberry such as when Phaedrus decided on the rediculaous idea of
> > studying Lila like a scientist to see what makes her tick. "She probably
> > wouldn't tell him anything.  Just like the Indians and the "objective"
> > anthros. Dusenberry should be here.  He could get it out of her.  All
> > I'm good for is theory, Phædrus thought."

> > Phaedrus is not the Zen Master of the story, he is Mr Spock. He is
> > an aspect of Pirsig's personality and not, I assume, what Pirsig
> > aspires to be. Nor should we. Nor should we be so caught up in the
> > top dog status of intellect. This mistake has contributed to making
> > who were once the MOQs two top priests into heretics.

Before leaving it to Mati I don't really understand what Steve's point 
is, course we know that young Phaedrus was a super-intellectual and 
that caused him to see the void under SOM (what became the 4th. 
level and the "void" explained as its static quality) And that "intellect-
as-SOM" was what had to be transcended to reach the Quality meta-
level. Everything is perfect. 


> Mati: I am not sure that I agree with this perspective. Pirsig and
> Phaedrus relationship is certainly intertwined and only he truly has
> the capacity to understand it. What many of us do understand and to
> some degree relate to is reflective process. And more so there tends
> to be a social alienation for those people who seem to be
> "Intellectual" and in there own world of deep reflective process. Lila
> saw it in Phaedrus, Sutherland's saw it in Pirsig. What Lila and the
> Sutherland's and so much of the greater population represent, is a
> group that does not tend to swim in the deep waters of deep
> reflection, an introversion so to speak. This is not to say they
> don't reflect on life's meaning it is to say they don't swim very
> deep. The issue of social alienation is a relatively simple one to
> understand, if you dedicate your thoughts to intellect then you are
> not as reflective of the social values around you, and consequently
> and developmentally you become less competent in the social values
> that dictates the relationships around you. I experienced that in
> high school and had few friends and those I did have were socially
> identified as"geeks" or at the lower end of the social order. In
> college professors tended to gravitate to me in class because I seemed
> to more advanced in reflecting on what they taught and what it meant,
> I swam in their waters :-). Socially in College I was just as
> challenged as in high school and I clearly recognized my social
> deficit and decided to try to learn new skills. Fast forward 20 years
> and I am doing a lot better socially and reflected and learned enough
> socially to do pretty well, but I also know my limitations. The fact
> is Dusenberry had both skills and Pirsig had only intellect skills to
> guide him.
> 
> As a final thought, before MOQ this reflective process ended with the
> Subjective and Objective reality. Pirsig/Phaedrus in ZMM ends with
> situation, and in Lila he delivers us from that problem to an
> understanding of the world with MOQ. Socially the world does not, as
> a social pattern, recognize intellect and the intellectuals that deal
> with it. It senses intellects patterns as alien and different from its
> pattern and tends to reject it. The good news is that our mother loved
> us anyway.
> 
> Ok one more thought it is interesting that perhaps Pirsig's greatest
> social and intellectual skill might have been in writing both ZMM and
> Lila. By doing so has been able to allow all of us to better
> understand. For that reason we have the wisdon to celebrate.
> 
> Mati
> 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/