[MD] The MOQ/Zen relationship.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mark

Sep. 25 you wrote

> Bo, It is from you that I learn all about the MOQ.? My posts enable me
> to do that.? I wonder about this thing called intelligence.? The way
> an organism evolves, through trial and error, always trying to best
> meet the needs of the environment.? Is this a lower intelligence than
> what you are writing about? 

Interesting issue. As you may have gleaned from my writings I 
consider the intelligence-intellect confusion to be THE stumbling 
block to understanding the MOQ. I have accused the American-
English language for making all turnings of (what SOM calls) "mental 
wheels" into intellectual endeavors. For instance a crow outside my 
window obviously pondering ways of getting to the food (for the 
smaller birds) into an "intellectual". This fallacy prevents the correct 
interpretation of the 4th. level - namely the S/O distinction - and 
makes into thinking in general.     

> The intelligence of a mountain to shape itself in a way to maximize
> it's existence.? Is this what your are talking about.? 

No, no, what I call intelligence - and believe what IS intelligence - is 
the higher complex neural (brain) animals (to switch to computer 
analogies) ability to store previous experience in random access 
memory as well as chache capacity (retrieving parts of memory) 
where previous experience is re-arranged. My crow "thinking" (in 
images) "if I do that, so will happen"? Of course not knowing this to be 
"thinking" or anything, just the most rudimentary turning of mental 
wheels. Must add that the simpler creatures even if lacking sense 
organs still sense their biological values (know whats good or bad for 
them. Re the amoeba in ZAMM)

OK, with the advent of the mammal brain and the human neocortex 
layer this intelligent capacity was enhanced enormously and IMO 
(perhaps) was the biological pattern that DQ hijacked to bring the Q-
social level about.   

> The way in which leaves grow extremely logical patterns to enable the
> absorption of energy and transfer of water, is this the intelligence
> you are talking about.? 

Not really, the plants are "biology" but surely not intelligent life, rather 
what I say above about "sensing biological values, what's good and 
bad for them" and this driving evolution in much the same way as 
Darwin's theory predicts.

> The way in which the neurons of the human brain interconnect to form
> patterns in response to the environment and enable communication
> between individuals for common purposes, is this the intelligence.? 

Above I hinted to the evolution of biological brain ending with the 
human neocortex layer .. and also that increased intelligence was a 
result,  not what spurred evolution on. Pirsig says the MOQ unites 
Evolution and Creation, study that chapter.

> Is the intelligence of a society somehow different from the
> intelligence of a herd of wildebeest on the Tanzanian plains?? Don't
> think so. 

This is also a splendid question. As the MOQ postulates - every level 
builds on the lower levels, thus when the social one established itself 
it adapted biological intelligence (used for mere survival at that level. 
The wildebeest on the Tanzanian plain) for its own social purposes. 
When intellect established itself on top of "society" IT in turn adapted 
the originally biological "thinking facility" - intelligence - for its 
purpose. And the MOQ will also employ it for ITS purpose. Hope you 
will rethink.  

> Human intelligence is nothing compared to the intelligence of the
> subatomic world in its ability to create, nothing in comparison to the
> ever evolving cosmology of the universe. Don't get fooled by what you
> call human intelligence.? It is governed by very subtle fluctuations of
> ions in the brain. Totally out of your control. Perhaps a class in
> neurobiology will bring you down to this earth. 

Well, I use my intelligence (think) along MOQ's patterns. It just 
postulates that the subatomic and superatomic world is the "static 
inorganic level" it does not contest its ability to bring about the most 
awesome complexity, yet is the first/lowest on the static ladder. I you 
think that all is sub-atomic fluctuations you subscribe to SOM's 
materialist branch. Be my guest 

> All these levels of increasing self-importance.? All that I hear is the
> Ego.? Perhaps a class in Freudian psychology will put you at ease. Then
> again, it's good to think that somehow you are better than a rock, if
> that is what you need to give purpose. 

Ditto, if you don't buy the MOQ and think me a pompous ass, fine, but 
what are you doing here?

Bodvar