In a message dated 8/12/01 6:42:04 AM GMT Daylight Time, skutvik@online.no
writes:
<< Subj: MD My un-consciousness Explained
Date: 8/12/01 6:42:04 AM GMT Daylight Time
From: skutvik@online.no
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Squonk and MDiscuss, PS for Jeremy.
"Hi Bo and All!
I hope my views are not that dreadful Bo? ;)"
Not at all and I am awfully sorry for not having responded before to this
post directed to me, but you see I am subscribed and let the program delete
everything, then look into the archives. Cumbersome and at the risk of
overlooking things, but necessary to preserve my peace of mind.
Also, no excuse but an explanation - I have been a bit unsure about your
from-the-hip responses ... if you were serious or just taunting. As a
non-english user I am not always able to judge the subtleties of the natives'
lingo.
I INTEND NO HARM BY MY, 'FROM THE HIP' POSTS.
'FROM THE HIP' IMPLIES DYNAMIC - I LIKE THAT!
(I SAY DYNAMIC, NOT NECESSARILY GOOD!)
"Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason.
I did not like your list.
It drove me round the bend wondering why i did not like it?
I thrashed about; wrote first, asked questions later.
Today it hit me!
The MOQ suggests four levels of morality.
This makes the four levels four different life forms!
They are in competition for dominance, and as such cannot be placed into the
causal chain you suggest."
The relationship between the levels is causal in the sense of the lower being
the parent (as P. says) of the next, so in that respect my list is as valid
or invalid as the original one. BTW, the MoQ causality is a bit different too
as I know you know.…
THE WHOLE CAUSATION APPROACH HAS TO GO.
IN THE MOQ, EACH LEVEL IS A DYNAMIC RESPONSE TO THE LOWER ONE; WE CAN
DISPENSE WITH THE TERM, 'CAUSE' ALTOGETHER.
"The four life forms are at war with each other; the link between them is
evolutionary and is one of value not causation."
P postulates a struggle for independence, but also an unavoidable dependency
on a more fundamental level. Much like the parent - children relationship.
YOU ARE NOT ADDRESSING MY POINT HERE CONCERNING INORGANIC, SOCIAL AND
INTELLECTUAL PATTERNS AS BEING ESSENTIALLY ALIVE IN THE SAME POSITIVE TERMS
WE ASCRIBE TO BIOLOGICAL PATTERNS.
WHEN I SUGGEST SOCIETIES ARE ALIVE, I MEAN IT: ALIVE AND EVOLVING IN TERMS OF
UNIVERSAL DARWINISM.
OF COURSE, EVOLUTION IS A MIGRATION OF ALL PATTERNS TOWARDS DQ AS YOU KNOW.
"As such your list is misleading and unnecessary. Your list suggests a causal
link where no causal link exists. The four levels of morality inhere in DQ,
and it is to DQ that one should look for a link."
I have been with the MoQ discussion from the start and the endless questions
of where this and that belong in the static sequence necessitated a different
approach to the levels, but the moment it seems misleading I will drop it,
however it has proved extremely fruitful....up to now..to me that is!
I APPLAUD PRAGMATISM WHOLE HEARTILY, BUT I FEEL YOUR LIST HAS IMPLICIT
ANTHROPOCENTRIC VALUE TRAPS.
"Now i look at my replacement list i put forward:
Resonance - Sympathy - Evocation - Coherence.
Why did i go for these terms?
Because i believe i was searching for a Horizontal connection between the
links in the chain and not a Vertical connection."
I see the static level hierarchy as very steep indeed. The first
(interaction) was more a rhyme and your "Resonance" may be just as good. The
rest of your list I (naturally) don't find better than my own. What
characterise life is 'sensing,' and 'emotion' as the social expression is my
pride. 'Reason' is also good (as I interpret the Q-idea).
I UNDERSTAND. HOWEVER, YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ADDRESS MY '4 - LIFE FORMS'
APPROACH. THE 4LF APPROACH IS NOT ANTHROPOCENTRIC.
ALSO: INTELLIGENCE IS NOT RESTRICTED TO REASON. MUSIC, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A
HIGHLY INTELLECTUAL PROCESS WHICH MAY BE EXPRESSED IN REASONED TERMS IN
TANDEM WITH OTHER INTELLECTUAL RESPONSES.
THE 4LF MODEL SUGGESTS THAT INTELLECT IS NOT CENTRED IN INDIVIDUALS.
IT ALSO SUGGESTS THE GIANT AS P CALLS IT.
ON THE BIOLOGICAL LEVEL, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF LIFE ON
EARTH IS PARASITIC, AND SENSATION DOES NOT CAPTURE THIS TRANS-BIOLOGICAL
ASPECT.
For those who don't find enough value-references in it, one may say that what
characterise all levels is "valuation," but VALUATION - VALUATION..etc.
wouldn't say much. One saint said something about yelping about God, and
there is much yelping about DQ/mysticism at these sites without it helping
understanding much. It's the backdrop of it all and that's enough for me.
I SEE YOUR POINT BO.
HOWEVER, ALL REALITY IS VALUE; EVEN DESCRIPTIONS OF VALUE ARE VALUE.
THIS DOES NOT LEAD TO TAUTOLOGY, AS THE RELATIONSHIP OF PATTERNS IS TO DQ.
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
YOUR LIST TREATS RELATIVES IN A SOM MANNER; WE HAVE TO MOVE TOWARDS TREATING
RELATIVES IN TERMS OF DQ.
You called my approach Aristotelian and that's pretty apt (no comparison:-).
If what is described in ZAMM was the birth of SOM with Socrates & Plato the
lofty thinkers and Aristotle the "eternal mechanic" who assembled it, someone
like Ari will be needed for the QM. Pirsig's hints to Q-physics, Q-economics
... , etc., but had enough job with the metaphysical cornerstones.
I HAVE SOME IDEAS CONCERNING Q-PHYSICS ETC, BUT THAT IS FOR AN ESSAY.
PLATO AND ARISTOTLE NEW ALL ABOUT QUALITY.
THE PROBLEM WITH THESE TWO GUYS MAY HAVE BEEN THAT THEY WHERE INVOLVED IN A
SOPHIST GAME AND SIMPLY TRIED TO OUT DO EACH OTHER.
ONE OUTCOME OF THE GAME HAS BEEN TO GENERATE SOM; BUT THAT IS MORE A MATTER
OF HISTORICAL ACCIDENT THAN OTHER WISE?
THE FRENCH LITERARY GROUP, OULIPO MAY HAVE BEEN UP TO THE SAME THING.
PLAYING GAMES IS A GREAT UTILITY OF DQ.
THE NOVEL LILA IS ALL ABOUT THE DANCING GAME OF REALITY.
Bo.
PS. Thanks to Jeremy....if asking Squonk why he rejected my expression list
means that you find it interesting?
AND IN THIS FORUM THERE ARE MANY STILL PLAYING THE PLATO/ARISTOTLE GAME.
THAT'S FINE AND ONLY HUMAN PERHAPS; BUT I FEEL QUALITY IS MORE THAN HUMAN,
AND AS SUCH IS BIGGER THAN YOU OR I BO.
I DO NOT WISH TO YELP ABOUT DQ.
I WISH RATHER TO EXPLORE WAYS OF RECOGNISING THE ROLE DQ CONSTANTLY PLAYS BY
IMPLICITLY REFERRING TO DQ IN THE LANGUAGE WE MAY CHOOSE TO UTILISE.
DAVID BOHM'S RHEOMODE, (WHOLENESS AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER) IS AN OUTSTANDING
PRECURSOR OF THE WAY FORWARD IN MY VIEW.
MANY THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO RESPOND.
ALL THE VERY BEST,
SQUONK. :-)
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