Dear Squonk. Reference to William Reynolds
You shouted :-)
> 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.
I agree.
> 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.
No sarcasm, but a static sequence of Biological - Biological ...etc
wouldn't be very productive. Having accepted the initial claims of
the MoQ (everything value and all existence covered by the said
static sequence) all what you say is naturally given, no need to
repeat it at every instance. There is a Zen saying (wish I could
recall it) about words going through stages according to
enlightement ending up at their original stage.
> I UNDERSTAND. HOWEVER, YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ADDRESS MY '4 - LIFE FORMS'
> APPROACH. THE 4LF APPROACH IS NOT ANTHROPOCENTRIC.
I don't know how to address them.OK it's not anthropocentric, but
neither is mine. As said, after accepting the initial postulates of the
MoQ - that the subject/object split is not the fundamental - the
internal/external (a S/O offshoot) does not apply, nor does
anthroposentric/extropocentric. If you could get a chimp to present
his world view it would be the Biological- plus Social-centric, while
our human is these plus Intellect-centric.
> ALSO: INTELLIGENCE
> IS NOT RESTRICTED TO REASON.
I agree, but there is no "intelligence" level in the MoQ. The
Intellectual level can however be characterized as "Reason", unless
one adopts the Intellect as "thinking" which is SOM in disguise.
> MUSIC, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A HIGHLY INTELLECTUAL PROCESS
Not solely intellectual IMO. Along with sculpting and painting, ART
emerged as social patterns (emotional) and rode evolution into
Intellect: overlaid with intellectual overtones.
> 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.
On the plant level - parasitic and non-parasitic - sensing is
embryonic yet present. All life form - the simplest bacterium -
senses its environment, what nourishment is good, where to live
..etc. While "sympathy" is an emotion, totally absent with the
lower life forms - emerging at the social level.
> 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.
In Christendom there is something about not being able to see the
face of God and live. DQ is not anything you can come to terms
with. There is one William Reynolds who asks if anyone has had a
Phaedrus experience and goes on to say:
> I had a similar experience, before reading ZAMM. I would summarise it
> thus: a sense of the dissolving of certain of one's mental structures,
> a radical internalisation of value, an awareness of the artificiality
> of conventional antitheses and generally of the inadequacy of
> language, and a detachment from the normal imperatives of personal
> survival and advancement.
> You can imagine the impact of reading ZAMM
William does not say if this was an unsettling experience, but I
sense an element of awe even fear (dissolution of one's mental
structure is not pleasant), anyway this matches my own back in
the mid-sixties. For years I felt there was something wrong with me
- other people not caring one bit about the open chasm below our
feet. And I chime in with William ...Imagine the impact of reading
ZAMM!!!! The relief upon meeting one who had gone through it - all
the way and not backed out like myself was enormous.
So my admonishment is: Encountering DQ - which means
dissolution - is not something we should flirt with, you are lucky if
surviving at all. It's there but I don't want to "see" it any more.
> I HAVE SOME IDEAS CONCERNING Q-PHYSICS ETC, BUT THAT IS FOR AN ESSAY.
Very interesting, hope you publish soon. I would like to see that -
truly.
> 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.
I buy this.
> 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.
That last bit is my deep conviction too.
See you.
Bo
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