Jeremy and MoQ Discussers.
You wrote:
> I find that your list
> Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason
> is both agreeable and disagreeable with regard to my cycle of
> Communication, Understanding, and Action.
Due to my notorious egotism I haven't noticed your list (only
Squonk's). Is it to understand that your Communication
corresponds to my Interaction, Understanding to Sensation and
Action to Emotion? But what corresponds to my Reason?
> The similarity between
> Interaction and Communication is clearly evident,
Smilarity perhaps, but to me 'interaction' sounds like a reciprocal
effect while 'communication' implies exchange of information only
..one way at times.
> then the next three
> steps in your list all fall under different categories of
> Understanding (which I don't associate strictly with the mental) .
Sensation and Emotion in the same category as Understanding? If
so in a very extended sense, understanding is strongly connected
with REASON in my opinion.
> You
> say nothing of Action in your list.
Naturally as Action isn't part of it. But I am not sure what (your)
Action corresponds to in the static value hierarchy? The intellectual
one? Please elaborate.
> All forms of Understanding, in my
> view, need venting or outlets in order for us to concede that they
> exist. Thus the reason for both agreement and disagreement at once is
> because you cover two of the three orders that cycle.
Here are some presuppositions that make it difficult for me to
follow. I "...cover two of the three orders [of] that cycle"? I obviously
need some additional information about your view.
Bo
PS: (irrelevant perhaps?)
I have earlier referred to silly debates over where phenomena
belong in the static hierarchy (f.ex. if a 'throne' was inorganic or
social value:) and how this was the reason behind my "expression"
list, but there was also the discovery of the "Semiotics
Metaphysics" of Charles Peirce that resembles the "trinity"
(quality - subjects/objects) version of the MoQ (ZAMM). This I
hoped would be a step-stone to the MoQ because it skips the
"mental" pitfall that makes it impossible for so many to grasp the
Quality idea. Mental means 'of mind' which, along with its opposite
'matter' makes up SOM's best known offspring, and as long as this
virus is at large inside the MoQ it will soon multiply and destroy it.
OK, back to Peirce's semiosis idea where SIGN plays the same
role as VALUE with Pirsig. I draw a parallel between them: Sign-
Significance-Value. A comparison between Pirsig and Peirce would
go like this.
Biological value is translating inorganic "signs" as Sensation (for
example that a particular molecular configuration signals "pain").
Social value is translating sensation into Emotions (f.ex. that pain
means "suffering" for another individual). And finally: Intellectual
value is translating emotions into Reasoning (that they are
subjective and not part of reality).
[Note that a certain "abstraction" enters at the Social level. This
justifies Pirsig's claim that Inorg.& Biology corresponds to
"objects" and Society&Intellect to "subjects". This I call the "weak
interpretation" of the MoQ while the SOLAQI (that SOM is the
intellectual level itself) is the "strong". No good/bad implication in
these terms, just like the ones used in Quantum Physics (see my
letter to John Beasley.)]
But please do also note that nowhere on this value ladder does
mind (consciousness/awareness enter). Many see language as
some point when we turned "mental" and ever since have been
"suspended in language". In my view language began as a means
of communication (a social pattern) but became the vehicle for DQ
into a new level. Intellect naturally renounce its social root and cast
language into its usual S/O mold (subjective words about objective
reality).
And as Intellect is the highest rung we are stuck in the position
that we operate from a consciousness that gives us access to
reality AS IT IS. My favourite spanner in this work is the fact that all
creatures sleep, so when waking up it must be to some reality
different from unconsciousness. The usual way to avoid this
enigma is to speak about "a dim perception", which is nonsense.
It's a clear perception of biological value, while humans perceive
biogical- plus social- and intellectual value ....after Pirsig even
perception of Quality.
Enough!
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 - 16:01:28 BST