[MD] Marsha's (s)OL: the question

[markhsmit]

Hi Bo,

Sorry for the JUST, just a reflex.  My way of learning is through
dialogue.  It may come across as a counter argument, but
rest assured, the only reason I read and post here is to learn.
If I provide my view in a closed way, it is simply meant to elicit
a response.  I do agree with much of what is said.  If I am
just to read and try to understand what you post, I will not
get very far.  

I also use just in a sarcastic way.  Because our
sensibility (the psycho-emotional) is a big picture.  It gets
compressed into linear intellect which is somewhat
reductionist.  It is impossible to experience a movie
by listening to someone transcribe it intellectually over the
phone while that person is watching it.  The intellect is
indeed limiting, blocking out 99% of experience, but
necessary for complex social behavior.  If the intellect is
the algorithm (ones and zeroes) behind this computer
exchange, looking at all that binary information does
not provide a great deal of info.  So much for The Matrix.

I am interested in this sharp demarkation of the levels.  A
quantum leap if you will.  In my opinion, the intellectual
level is heavily dependent on the so called biological level.
Every question of why has a personal basis to it.  Granted
the answers to such questions are full of words and concepts,
but there is a definite continuity.  For me, the intellect is the
spokesperson for the rest of the body.  It delivers the information
to another body.  The information it is transferring is the
sensibility needing transfer.  Any logical argument can
be reduced to basic sensibility, that is, our interaction
in this existence.

It is not necessary to create levels as such, since they seem
to confuse the situation  This is not to say that
the expression of a hierarchical existence does not convey
the sensibility (feeling within you) that you are trying to convey.
I am looking for an easier expression of Quality and how it
manifests.  Is it possible to explain Quality without levels?

As you suggest, I will indeed read more dogma on the
subject.  My intent is to understand what this is all about.
It is one of my current courses of study, in my attempt
to broaden my worldview.  Given the time I have available
and the amount still to be looked into, I do rely on
simple dialogue with those who seem to have a grasp.

Cheers,
Mark

On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:16:42 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
From:   skutvik at online.no
Subject:    Re: [MD] Marsha's (s)OL: the question
Date:   October 26, 2009 3:16:42 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hi Marksmit

25 Oct. you said

> Hi Bodvar,
> Just an emotion, eh?   

It's difficult to communicate from MOQ's premises to your SOM-ish 
one .....

An aside: This is no insult, most people, even in this alleged MOQ 
discussion are SOMists in the sense of their focus being at the 
intellectual level. 

Your post is symptomatic, I did not say that love is JUST an emotion" 
but you automatically categorized it that way, meaning "subjective", 
something going on in the mind of the person in love. Phaedru's 
original claim was that everything is Quality, and when P. of ZAMM 
was confronted by his colleagues their (SOM) claim was that quality is 
"just subjective". 

The word was ``just.'' Why should Quality be just what you 
like? Why should ``what you like'' be ``just''? What did ``just'' 
mean in this case? 

But later with MOQ's DQ/SQ divide - and static levels - all phenomena 
in this world belong somewhere in the level hierarchy. Pirsig does notd 
say this but from MOQ's premises I place emotions with the social 
level. This 3rd. level is below the 4th. but definitely not "just", rather the 
base of the intellectual level. 

> A spark fired across a gap?  If you can explain that to me then 
maybe we'll get somewhere.   

This was me trying to be sarcastic, because most people want 
"intelectual" to be whatever SOM characterizes as "mental activity". 
Thus when a crow outside my window tilts its head speculating on how 
to reach some food, this is bird is an "intellectual"! 

> This so called intellect is just complex communication which is an
> extension of the so called emotion.  A way to share emotion if you
> will. 

The 4th. level is "out of" the 3rd, but definitely not "an extension" their 
morals are sharply demarkated and "no" the 4th level is NOT just 
anything, it's the highest static quality, namely the ability to distinguish 
between what is (in its own lingo) "just subjective" and what is 
"objectively true". And it has nothing to do with "sharing emotion", that 
is our social component's business. 

> This is why metaphysics based on the intellect as something 
different, something special, something exclusively human, falls apart. 

Here you show a "spark" of understanding (;-) if this means that SOM 
"falls apart".(meaning the 4th. level as SOM not as a static level) 

> Not to say that our experience is not something grand, something
> special.  Our personal presence here is indeed that!  It's just
> explained in the wrong way. It's a self serving intellect; can only be. 

Well, whatever this means, until the Quality understanding of the 
intellectual level is established the MOQ remains a subset of SOM. 
You Marksmit show an interest so try to grasp this. Read and think 
before throwing yourself at the keyboard with you own counter-
arguments as most discussers do.

Bodvar












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/