ROG TO BO
> > TO DAN, MARCO, DANILLA, BO AND RICHARD ON LEVELS PERCEIVING AND
> > AFFECTING EACH OTHER:
> > I suggest we come to a consensus that anthropomorphizing the levels
> > is a convenient, but often-times sloppy rhetorical practice. In
> > other words, that the levels don't have "motives" or "wants" or
> > "perceptions". The levels refer to patterns of value. Each level
> > emerges out of the lower values, but the process is so complex that
> > there is little or no direct interaction between non-adjacent
> > levels. As for adjoining levels, although they do interact, I agree
> > with Bo that each level "is bound to follow its basic value." Do
> > any of you substantially disagree?
>
BO :
> Anthromorphizing the levels!? From Intellect (which is S/O in my
> book) we can't help alternate between viewing them as perceiving,
> having motives ...etc and viewing them as empty concepts.
>
> Intellect-consciousness - a subject different an objective world - is
> limited, but we ARE all levels and can become socio-conscious or
> bio-conscious or inorg-conscious. The last I say only among
> friends!! :-). Ask your cat why so careless: "...don't you know what
> your real (objective) situation is? The answer you get is the
> biological one! We are that level too, but it is overlaid by two more
> layers that dominate the outlook. Intellect the most.
>
> Each level is bound to follow it's basic value, but some ambiguous
> pattern of each level went off on a purpose of its own and started a
> new level. Intellect can't but see S/O-wise on existence so it is not
> intellect that perceives the limits of intellect but some ambiguous
> intellectual pattern (the Quality idea) .....this is the only way out of
> the anthropomorph double bend.
>
>
ROG:
Bo, I am sorry, but I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Let me
clarify.... my point was that it is more accurate to say that the level is
made of values sharing certain characteristics than it is to say that a level
is a semi conscious entity with wants and desires and such. I think people
really do get hynotized by language sometimes to take a metaphor too
seriously. There are biological entities and social entities, but there is
not a biological level with selfish wants and desires. Certainly we can pass
on some concepts by characterizing them this way, but let's not overdo it. We
CAN avoid this metaphor where inappropriate if we want to. That is to say,
when it is of better quality to avoid anthropomorphising.
Thanks for reading...what am I listening for?
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST