Bo, Marco and other interested participants,
Thank you very much, Bo and Marco, for your very interesting comments. I
have been away for some days, and was very pleased to discover both your
replies when I returned.
Bo wrote:
>I agree most profoundly about ...."In order to get any further...etc."
>A system must comply with some (mathematical) beauty to satisfy
>your demands. At first the MoQ did so - doing away with the SOM
>impossibilities - and I was delighted, but as the discussion
>developed there was questions where this and that belonged, and it
>soon looked like a mess. That's why my list which again made it
>terse and beautiful ...to me at least.
As you understand, I'm in the process of getting to know the possible
ingredients in the levels. This partly because I have some potential
problems with the levels, as the intellectual me seems to directly be
over-ruling my biological me, as I understand is a not very good idea
according to MoQ. Let's say as an example that a person (on the intellectual
level) decides to commit suicide. The biological level try to stop this
stupid idea, and sometimes this works, but sometimes the intellectual level
is winning this battle. "Popular" ways of suicide in Norway is to jump of a
cliff or drive a car right into something big (like a truck). These ways
might be recognised by the fact that they happen fast, and the conscious me
am maybe not totally involved. This seems to be examples of intellect over
biology (directly). Another example that comes to mind, is when I try to
convince myself to take a bath here in Norway (12 -18 deg C in the ocean
outside Stavanger), biologically, I do not at all want the bath, but
intellectual I know that I will feel better after the bath. My intellect
always wins this battle.
But, but mostly I'm interested in the levels because I like to see the
essence of the levels to better understand.
Bo wrote:
>In its time I had the ... Sensation - Emotion - Reason figured out,
>but lacked the inorganic "expression". I asked the group for
>suggestions and "Interaction" was proffered by Magnus Berg. It
>rhymes at least ......??.
Marco wrote:
>Actually, I was meaning that language is *possibly* the social code for the
>intellectual level, just like DNA is the inorganic code for life. But this
is
>exactly what I have refreshed lately. Now I'd say that the language (or,
better,
>communication) is the machine code for the social level (Bo will
disagree...)
>While emotions are not a code at all.
I did not understand "Interaction" at first, but interaction between masses,
electrons etc by forces seems to be what is holding the inorganic level
together (in a simplified view). I can also accept that emotions
(conscience) is what is holding the society together, but are sensations
holding the biological level together?
A different question from what is holding the s.q.p. at each level together,
is how these rules are communicated at each level? I think that you at a
social level have to answer "Language". The answer on biological level might
be DNA, but I think it also might be adrenaline or other body fluids that
transfer information between cells in the body. I'm not sure, but to me the
difference between Bo and Marco might be
based in that the question is not agreed upon. Comments please.
I wrote some time ago:
> - On a
> biological level I have life in this body, I can transform dead
> material (meat, vegetables, water and air) by a dynamic process into
> life. The biological level controls the main processes that are needed
> to keep me alive as breathing, digestion etc. These processes are
> controlled by an autogenous neural system, not controlled by the
> conscious me (conscious used in a medical term). According to Bo
> Skutvik, this level expresses itself by sensations (adrenaline
> controlled emotions).
Bo answered:
>I notice that you say: " . a definition of HOW I AM at the different
>levels. As I see it identity isn't an issue at the biological level, you -
>Gerhard - involves an organism of the mammal class whose
>biological workings are stupendous complex, yet, if MoQ is valid
>something common must characterize each level: What goes for
>an amoeba must go for a human being.
>
>Like an alchemist I got the essence to be SENSATION. The
>bacterium, amoeba or earthworm have no special sense organs,
>but nevertheless sense what is good and bad for their lives. The
>homo sapiens is the very same value evolved a million times over,
>but the basic value is more clear at the lower end. We must not
>mix in what we as social beings deem good or what we as
>intellectual beings know is good, but keep biological value clean.
I have two problems with your answer:
1) I would guess there would be different levels of evolution among
biological organisms, which might also result in a broader band of
sensations to more evolved biological organisms. An amoeba is sensing danger
and food, I am IMO sensing smell, sight, noises, taste, touch, danger,
hunger, sexual lust.
2) I do not think that danger, hunger, sexual lust is a social emotion, as a
biological individual is sensing these things without a society.
I'm not sure if we disagree (not very much at least), maybe I just
misunderstand your words. Please let me know.
I wrote:
> I guess anger and fear is among these
> sensations.
Bo answered:
>No, those are emotions! The proverbial amoeba encountering a
>drop of sulphur acid (ZAMM page 143? where I'm now I don't have it
>with me) will sense "bad" but no chill runs up its spine. An
>earthworm being drawn up by a bird senses "harm", but fear isn't
>part of its repertoire, and biologically we are that simple too. Keep
>the social and intellectual at bay at this stage.
Still not sure, but for now I have removed anger, fear and joy from my
sensation list.
Bo wrote:
>OK, but I prefer the term "emotion". "Feeling" is too ambiguous (as
>a compatriot you know that our "fölelse" has the same ambiguity)
Just a slip during the translation from English to Norwegian and back :-)
I wrote:
> I have included guilt (not doing what is
> right), a feeling of inferiority, hurt feelings and faint-heartedness
> into this category. All these feelings may initiate sensations on a
> biological level as a defence mechanism.
Bo answered:
>Yes, this is just right, emotions have an enormous range and
>strength, its the (third) most powerful/valuable level, second only to
>REASON. It can kill and it can bless.
Ahhhhh, but if you remove anger, fear and joy from my sensation list, what
sensations can emotions raise?
Bo wrote:
>Right, "bad conscience" shows how Society can control a member
>- but REASON can override society.
Agree!
I wrote:
> I can also intellectual decide to do something else than
> the society expect. According to MoQ I'm controlling my biological
> "Me" from this level.
Bo answered:
>Nörretranders I/me is somewhat SOM-generated, but it works here,
>only that the MoQ would say that Intellect controls Society (not
>Biology, if I get you right when saying "something else than the
society expect)
I mentioned this earlier in this post. I have problems accepting the idea
that my intellect is not controlling my biological body. I can decide to do
actions, I can decide to stop actions. I can also force my body to go on
without sleep, rest, food etc without my biological body acceptance. How can
we explain this?
Bo continued:
>But - as always - the lower level is the platform of the upper and if
>things go awry at the top, it kicks in. For instance: Normally
>Intellect is our point of view, and murder is wrong, but if war strikes
>the social values takes over and our view shifts to the next safe
>latch. Suddenly killing is the right thing to do. Only the MoQ
>explains this mysterious moral shift, while SOM is helpless here
>with it's simple one-dimensional evil/good notion.
Yes, I agree so far.
Bo wrote:
>Er...."can think"!? (Reason is correct though!) is the eternal "thorn
>in my flesh" . IMO the Q-Intellect is not the "mental" realm of SOM
>where thinking - as such - takes place. A social-focussed person
>do mental exercises, writes and reads, no, Intellect is rather the
>ability to discriminate what is objective from what is subjective
>(SOLAQI=subject/object logic as Q-intellect). Back to my war
>example (there is no better demonstration of the social value
>versus intellectual) produces propaganda, its simple-minded
>populace accepts it while the intellectuals see thorough it. But
>remember no level is out-of-the-blue. that's also a tenet of the MoQ.
>If the bells toll the staunchest intellectual will eventually slip back
>to social jingoism.
This is generally understandable, but the SOLAQI idea is a little hard. I've
tried to let this idea rest in my mind for some time, but I still have some
problems :-).
I wrote:
> I can make mental models of how
> things are working. Without the intellectual level I guess I would not
> be able to make a model about the world as the centre of the universe
> and the moon and sun rotating around us. I would definitely not be
> able to interpret a more abstract model of the sun as the centre of
> out solar system. I guess I would only treat it as something like a
> social pattern.
Bo answered:
>EXACTLY (I have no more adjectives)
So I guess you mean I'm showing my ability to discriminate what is objective
from what is subjective in this statement. I have to think more on this.
Marco wrote a long time ago:
> >My suggestions for the 4 environments:
> >Space-time universe
> >Ecosystem
> >Political-Economic System
> >Public Opinion
I asked:
> I maybe have to think about these, but I generally like all except Public
> Opinion. Socrates was not too happy about the public opinion, and I don't
> think it is a part of the intellectual level. In fact, I would say the
> Public Opinion belonged to the social level, and that something like
> "Scientific Opinion" could be used at the intellectual level according to
my
> understanding. Please tell me if you think I'm wrong.
Marco replied:
>You disagree on public opinion, but I'd say that scientific
>opinion IS a public opinion, where simply the public is restrained to a
>recognized elite. Even the Norwegian public opinion is an elite, where
probably
>a Tanzanian has almost no voice.
>
>Another problem I have with your scientific opinion is that you seem to
give
>science the whole intellect. And philosophy? And theology? And arts?... I
>agree that Socrates was not happy with public opinion, but when he was
>discussing philosophy in the agora, well, he was having an active role just
in
>the Athenian public opinion. He was not happy 'cause the environment is an
arena
>in which patterns have to fight, and often environments are not friendly.
1 - I agree with your view, but I find your use of the phrase "public
opinion" to describe your view a little strange.
2 - In "Science" I do include philosophy, but you're right - arts and
theology should also be a part of the intellectual environment.
This must be it for now. Bye.
Gerhard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:27 BST