Denis (John B. mentioned) and Group.
(First. My message in the "Metaphysical premises" thread got
prematurely posted as "denis" due to my strange way of interacting
with this forum ......hope you don't mind.)
You (>) said to me who had said (>>)
> > The fascist deduction from the Giant metaphor eludes me
> > completely, and the "consciousness" of the various levels (from P's
> > remark about ......an intelligence of its own) seems to be a great
> > hang-up with John. I must point to my effort to oust this arch-SOM
> > notion from the MoQ, it's poison there and possibly the reason you
> > never seem to get it right ;-)
> There goes my Nobel prize.... :-(
My "you never seem to get it right" quip was for John B.
> As said by Wilber, John and I, there is no notion of a "consciousness"
> at the social level. How can behaviours have a consciousness ? The
> notion that behaviours originate from organic nervous systems does not
> imply that these behaviours share the organisms "animal intelligence"
> (different from Q-Intellect, you'll remember).
Wilber %¤#"&!!!!!! I am very unhappy about the sudden Wilber
interest and suspect that his version of the level idea is poisoning
the MoQ. John B is obviously lost to these pre-fabricated levels
that we know from so many newage systems .... but you too my
son Brutus.
OK you don't seem completely lost. According to my dictionary
"Consciousness = All the ideas, thoughts, feelings, wishes,
intentions, recollections of a person or persons". This is for all
practical purposes identical with "mind" (my dictionary goes page
up and down in its many definitions of "mind"). We have been over
this a million times and I had an impression that you agreed to the
following: ....If Pirsig claims that SOM is wrong - and we declare
that his ideas are valid - then the somish mind notion must go, not
by discarding the word, but giving it a new meaning. While in the
above you make it sound uncannily like the traditional sort.
Funny, everybody seems keen on discard the somish "matter"
notion, but mind/consciousness lives on and keeps popping up all
over the place.
> Because your computer
> can compute bits doesn't mean that this email you're reading can, does
> it ? But it is also ridiculous to claim that your computer cannot
> compute bits, or that no animals have memories and capabilities for
> deductive reasoning. This intelligence, as lowly as it might seem, can
> fall under the umbrella of a wide-ranging term as "consciousness". Or
> should a law be passed against this word ? ;)
I won't comment on these valid observations right now, but dive
straight to the bottom.
The experience of Phaedrus (of ZAMM) was that the SOM
analyzed by his analythic "knife led to solipsistic emptiness:
Objectivity went first, then subjectivity and he "went mad", then
slowly understood that the void is QUALITY. It's so easy to
interprete this the way that everything is subjective/mind and that
"we" (with our minds) create reality ... the usual newage rubbish,
but that is not the MoQ.
Existence is value-conscious at various levels, but nowhere does
any "awakening to awareness" (in the SOM sense) take place.
Allusions of aware atoms has been made ...and surely matter is
inorganic-value-aware! At the next level awareness has grown to
include biological value, but no organism is aware of anything else
than biological value - that goes for the human body too. Social
consciousness makes existence aware of three values - and
behaviour becomes accordingly complex. Finally intellectual value
which boosts existence another notch on the consciousness
ladder ....
(This is so important that I must begin a new paragraph. Wish I
were able to enrich, italize, underline and colour the following
because it contains my CREDO:)
* * * * * * * *
....to the point of seeing itself as a subject (with a mind), but
understand that this value level is merely the S/O DIVIDE. Mere! Of
course not, it's a gigantic leap (like all value increments befor it),
but still an illusion in which existence has been suspended ever
since ...until Pirsig came along that is.
* * * * * * * *
You ask if a law should be passed against the word
"consciousness". No, feel free to use it, as well as the whole range
of SOM's vocabulary, but this is existence looking backward from
the intellectual level relegating its own S/O divide on to the rest of
the value sequence. If existence steps down to the social level it
discards the S/O divide and becomes the common cause capable
of blowing itself to pieces or diving airplanes into a building.
> I'm actually writing a post that will address your concerns a bit more
> directly, and I'll post it as soon as I can. It's titled "Has Pirsig
> invented a new disguise for SOM ?"...
> On that ominious tone, I'll now say goodbye...
I look forward to your post - sincerely, but please consider the
above "credo", you have a special affinity to metaphysical deep-
diving. Maybe your Nobel Price will be secured.
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 - 16:01:38 BST