Hi Bo,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of skutvik@online.no
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 December 2000 9:09
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: RE: MD EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
>
>
> Chris Lofting wrote:
>
> > I think the emphasis from my perspective is that MOQ and the S/D
> > emphasis stems from the neurological emphasis on
> > objects/relationships.
>
> Hi Chris and All Discuss.
> Is S/D equal to S/O (subject/object) or is it some other acronym
> that has gone me by? You say: "...MOQ and the S/O emphasis
> stems from the neurological ...etc". Do you mean that the Quality
> Metaphysics emphasizes the subject/object relationship because
> only in it is the S/O identified as a world view ?
>
The emphasis on subject/object is at a raw level an OBJECT oriented
perspective. The emphasis on static/dynamic is at a raw level a more of a
RELATIONSHIPS oriented perspective.
subject/object are symbolised by DOTS or POINTS on the page. static/dynamic
deal with relationships BETWEEN the DOTS or WITHIN a DOT or BEHIND a DOT.
Look at this from a mathematics perspective where OBJECTS are WHOLE numbers.
PART numbers are called rational numbers and relate to the harmonic series.
Static relationships are irrational numbers, the represent the taking of
sets of rational numbers (as well as other irrationals) and deriving
relationship symbols (e.g. PI or e etc) Dynamic relationships are imaginary
numbers dealing with the DYNAMICS of transitions, transformations,
cyclic/morphic change.
QUALITATIVE elements are more tied to static/dynamic relationships; thus
what is projected from or onto an object can be identified as 'quality' and
feedback processes in development can lead to that quality being contained
in an object from first expression, examples of genetic adaptions.
> If so you have a deep insight, but am afraid that you simply mean
> that biology (when it reaches the "thinking" level) is bound to
> perceive reality as subjective/objective because of a neurological
> hard-wiring (a ROM so to speak) ...and that this basic S/O by
> twists and turns even has spawned the dynamic/static division.
>
Consider the distinction of Darwinism/Lamarckianism. The properties of these
two suggest that they do not oppose each other but more so capture two
aspects of the evolutionary process. Darwin seems more object bias in
perspective with an emphasis on chance, 'eternal' time spans and a REACTIVE
emphasis. Lamarck reflects a relational bias with an emphasis on PROACTIVE
processes.
Thus there is a transition from reactive to proactive, from object
preferences to relationships preferences. Our brains oscillate with these
preferences over seconds to centuries etc From a persona angle some are born
with a more object-related preference and others with a more relationships
preference. Without education so these preferences often take gender
positions with the male more 'object' oriented - single context thinking,
face-value emphasis, seeks sensations, seeks identifications; gets into the
King/Lover/Warrior/Wizard archeypes... The female side is more responsive to
patterns, context, seeing BEHIND as well as the processes of exagerating
boundaries etc.
Our education systems (as well as genetic diversity) have taken these biases
as mixed them such that the gender distinctions become diffuse and we start
to develop all of these aspects to deal with as many contexts as possible...
> If so, isn't that just another way of saying that a belief or a theory,
> how deep and all-encompassing, is just a by-product of some more
> basic conditions, and thus that you belong to the materialist
> camp? But wait, this isn't so bad in my book, I like it bit better than
> the dualist view: that mind and matter are worlds apart "and that
> the twain shall never meet". But really the MOQ conforms to
> neither.
>
The evolutionary viewpoint is that mind came after matter and seems to be a
product of the feedback processes -- consciousness is a management system
supported by a huge network of unconscious processes that often do not need
managerial interactions.
> If I stretch myself to the limit to meet you. In my opinion the QM
> (sort of) supports this view although from a different angle because
> in it the Inorganic value level (matter) puts some restrictions on the
> rest of the static sequence, but the Q-idea is that the next level
> transforms the restrictions (it inherited from the parent level) into its
> own purpose. Yet the lower values follows like the floors of a
> building, so even Intellect is is inorganic-biological-social
> dependant.
>
The hierarchy in neurology is well documented and we see this reflected in
our maps.
> Your point that the biological hard-wiring bleeds trough in a
> "thinking context" (which I believe is your concession to the
> Intellectual level?) may be valid, but I fear that you harbour the
> common notion of mind-out-of-matter (matter in bio-neurological
> form of course) and that the Social level - the Q-levels generally - is
> of no consequence.
>
Not really .. I think from a development aspect the social level as we know
it is a SECONDARY process that develops from feedback loops. Prior to that
is a social level that is all gene based -- Species based (e.g. in baboons
the troop formations seem to be genetically determined, there is no
CONSCIOUS awareness of these formations, you just 'do it') Thus a SPECIES
social order is then particularised through the emergence of consciousness
and that in turn shifts the species from a REACTIVE lifeform to a PROACTIVE
lifeform, thus now the species consciously 'rules' on the individual etc and
so a relationship develops between individual and the culture.
The infant is a reactive lifeform dependent of mother and local context for
support. As the infant develops he/she becomes more proactive to a degree
where they think that they control it all ... and then they come face to
face with feedback loops, some good, some bad, and from their they develop
further.
My PRIMARY interest is what sets it all off? I am not too interested in the
social emphasis since there is so much, so many relationships. What I am
interested in is the amount of internal structuring required to lead to a
developed individual operating successfully in social interactions, picking
the 'quality' material, the best probabilities, and in particular AI
systems. IOW what set of fundamentals are required to develop a reasonable
sense of meaning as we have, and that is where the template comes in...
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
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