Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:01:41 +0100
>From: Bodvar Skutvik [SMTP:email@example.com]
>But first allow me to air an idea that may clarify the MOQ morality levels,
>and their relationship. If I have said this before please forgive: As you
>know, The quality duality is between Dynamic and Static values - NOT
>between mind and matter. About the Dynamic half not much can be said except
>it being the background of it all, but the static levels are also different
>realities in a way. It seems complicated and I had a bit of trouble with
>this - until I got the "dimension" input. We are familiar with physical
>space's three dimensions; vectors that constitute the spatial continuum.
>Nobody can tell where width ends and breadth starts or both are replaced by
>height, these dimensions can be endlessly combined but still keep their
>unique quality. Isn't this a good analogue of the MOQ levels? We - humans -
> are the four planes of reality all the time, they intersect and interplay
>in an unending number. of configurations; what we call "mind" is the
>reflection of what dimension at a given time dominates.
Yes, it's a fair analogy, as long as you remember that
MoQ levels are dependent on the lower levels. Dimensions
do not have this requirement, nor are they ordered.
>Well, then over to the MOQ Intellectual dimension, and my definition of it,
>which is: THE LEVEL WHERE THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL (SELF) AS DIFFERENT
>FROM ITS SOCIETY IS RECOGNISED. In this sense it is related to the SOM's
>awareness (or consciousness or mind) term (if one manages to keep the
>"aware of objective reality" connotation of SOM at bay). I also said that
>.....frog's experience was the frog's consciousness. I refuse to put it in
>brackets because it is so in its fullest sense. This does NOT mean that a
>frog "thinks" (Hey, I am a frog, what am I doing here?) in the sense of
>using symbolic language, but it senses and experiences its ORGANIC reality
>according to its neural complexity. We humans may easily slip down to the
>organic level too, in pain or lust we experience without "thinking" or
>"language"? (In the Social level experience is also dominated by emotions,
>but heavily intersected with language.)
I think your definition is too general. It really applies to all
levels. I also would like to emphasize that our individual
intellects are not built upon what we usually call society,
but on the society we call our bodies.
>Language and/or thinking's: "Hey, I am a human being" are static
>Intellectual Value patterns. It is a marvellous dimension, to repeat: it
>contains heaven and earth....etc. (ZMM p.244). It is every bit as real as
>the other levels ( even more valuable as the top position), but as the
>great divide no longer is between subjectivity and objectivity it does not
>represent "reality as it is".
>I anticipate Jason's next argument as: Yes, but the manipulation of
>language's concepts in rules of semantics and grammar are abstractions! The
>concrete/abstract duality is also a subject/object offshoot, and does not
>apply in the MOQ. This is simply infuriating (see BoS' "dogfight" with one
>Don D'Dandrea on Björn's page. The "Is it possible to be dead" and "Only
>serious need answer" entries). In the SOM this creates another platypus as
>it is easily proved that there is no reality outside language. I.e; The
>world is an illusion. Thinkers who dare these paths have pulled back in
>horror or plunged into the nihilistic void (Nietzsche).
>In LILA Pirsig shows how The Intellectual values of freedom from society's
>bonds came to dominate the Western political scene (as late as around WWI
>I), he also points to its first steps in that direction to around Homer's
>time (see also Jaynes' Bicameral idea), yes, in a sense can Subject/Object
>metaphysics itself be seen as its endeavour to conquer Social values. But
>this does not mean that the dynamic forces hadn't tried to latch on for
>tens of thousands of years. Brain's neural capacity, language (thinking)
>has been well developed for perhaps fifty thousand years: caveman's art was
>even better (Diana don't you agree?), but the point is that tribal/communal
>values dominated WHAT was in their minds. It's been an enormous and
>tortuous path till now when Intellectual values dominate.
>I didn't quite follow there for a while, but let's get
>back to the concrete/abstract duality. I think that it's
>just this that makes intellectual patterns so powerful.
>The ability to build a mental image of an observation
>and mentally manipulate it and combine it with other
>images to predict the future.
>The only language involved is the internal language
>within your body-society.
-- post message - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org unsubscribe/queries - mailto:email@example.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST