Murdock, Mark (Mark.Murdock@Unisys.Com)
Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:47:58 +0100
Thanks for your insights. My apologies if I'm wandering down trodden
paths and I appreciate your patience. Couple of questions:
> First of all, I think that all
> levels have no idea about any higher levels. Inorganic patterns are
> not aware of organic manipulation and so on. So, we wouldn't
> intellectually be able to see any higher levels.
True, but even though we cannot visualize hyperdimensions it doesn't
preclude us from doing the math. I think you are suggesting the
hypothesis has no intellectual value because it is incapable of being
understood intellectually. Does this mean that any superstructure that
might exist above the intellectual level is de facto meaningless to us?
> Second, since this higher level is not definable, Mystical experiences
> would hardly be mystic if they were defined, it is not a static level,
> hence Dynamic Quality mediating intellectual patterns.
We cannot intellectualize a level above the intellect, I agree. But it
may be static from it's point of view. If we were only intellectual
creatures, I would say that you're explanation that they are just DQ
mediating intellectual patterns is sufficient. But we are more than our
intellect. That which is before our intellect is not intellectual,
social, biological, inorganic, and it is also not DQ, which is something
much greater, the source of all things.
> Third, my impressions are that people suggesting a higher level don't
> want it to be static in the first place. It seems to be the same kind
> misguided reaction to intellectual patterns as the hippies' reaction
> social patterns.
The hippies equated their moral intellectual struggle from social
constraints with the biological struggle against moral social controls.
I don't seek to attack intellectual values from both sides with this
supposition. I contend there are static values "up there" but we just
cannot intellectually understand them from "down here." They will never
make sense. I do, however, believe we can "know" this level in other
Perhaps I am trying to find a place in Pirsig's model for our spiritual
selves. Lumping it into the Great Unknown seems to be denying the
possibility of knowing this part of us.
> I'm sorry if I'm sounding categorical but as Maggie use to say,
> push back.
> post message - mailto:email@example.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
-- post message - mailto:email@example.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:25 CEST