LS Re: Senses

Magnus Berg (
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:31:30 +0100

Hi Maggie and Lila Squad!

Maggie wrote:
> What a great suggestion! Define the four levels. It should be simple. I always
> say the concepts are simple. Somehow, it's not.

> What fun!

Now that's the spirit! :-)

It was quite a monster as you said, I'll just pick a few
interesting parts.

> How do intellectual patterns propagate? Do they?

You're a teacher, wouldn't you know? :-) Ok, maybe music
isn't directly intellectual patterns. Anyway, I'd say
through language. Written, spoken or transferred by
other means of communication.

> Does change within the intellectual level come from the combining of
> intellectual patterns? With social forces as arbiters? Destructive change
> happens as a result of the social support of an intellectual pattern
> disappearing.

If intellectual patterns only changed by combining two or more, a
hen-and-egg situation seems to appear, so another way must exist also,
DQ most probably.

> Is intellectual quality evaluation? (This would seem to indicate a static
> Intellectual Quality) Or is it inspiration (defined as "the act or power of
> moving the intellect or emotions")? Is this Dynamic Quality or static?

I'd say static intellectual patterns are static, ... well..., and inspiration
is dynamic change of these patterns.

Somehow and maybe that got me to realize Bo's, Diana's and Platt's
point of view of the intellectual level. When we intellectually
(try to) value, say, biological value, i.e. taste, we do this
second hand by valuing what our senses told us. We can't intellectually
value the pre-intellectual taste. In the same way, we can (actually
can't) value social value intellectually by valuing what the
society told us. In this case we can however, value the two
different societies given by presense or abscense of what the
society valued... got that?

I mean, we can intellectually value a society with and without
a police force and judge the society with a police force as
more valuable for intellectual patterns to devour.

The question Bo, Diana and Platt asks when asking what
intellectual value is, is, what can intellectual patterns
directly value? Or rather, what types of Quality Events
are the origin of intellectual patterns of value?
Bo? Diana? Platt?

What I think need to be addressed here is that the MoQ
does not forbid subjects and objects as such, only as the
primary division of the world. I think our differences
arises from the fact that what we are trying to *define*
are the subjects that are results of the Quality Event,
while Bo, Diana and Platt refuses to define the objects.



post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST