Dear David,
Please accept my condolences on the death of your father-in-law.
Death is a meaningful part of life...
You wrote 2/2 16:03 -0700:
'I'd ask that you respond to what is said rather than what is not
said'.
My response was unqualified agreement. I'm sorry I couldn't be
more constructive.
I was a bit dissatisfied with the meagerness of that response.
That's why I suggested some additions. If you don't want to zero
in on those additions, that's fine with me. I'll come back to
them in due course anyway.
If you want more direct response to your two points (in my words:
'don't associate social/intellectual with collective/individual'
and 'do associate social/intellectual with
unconscious/conscious'), maybe you should formulate some key
questions like the one that started the 'Overdoing the
Dynamic'-thread.
Regarding the question how to distinguish between levels, I'd
suggest to look for different type of static latches and 'more
dynamic' ones the 'higher' the level. For the social level and
those that border on it I hold that the static latch latches are:
- of the biological level DNA (preserving/reproducing species via
copying processes in which RNA, proteins and procreating
individuals appear)
- of the social level habit (preserving/reproducing cultures via
copying processes in which unconscious behavior and raising next
generations appear)
- of the intellectual level motives (preserving/reproducing
ideologies via copying processes in which stories, paradigms and
education appear)
I don't like peanut butter, the idea of mixing peanut butter and
jelly is abhorrent to me, but I appreciate the idea of
integrating Pirsig and Wilber. The graphics are not mine but
3WDave's and I am NOT satisfied with the second one (that WAS
produced by 3WD with my input). What about the idea of skipping
(an increasing number of) lower levels of consciousness (of
Wilber) to fit these 'evolutionary arrows' into Pirsig's levels
(from inorganic to intellectual)?
I also VERY MUCH agree with your 2/2 18:13 -0700:
'I'd like to add that to the MOQ, this ubiquitous force is known
as Dynamic
Quality, that all manifestations, all things and beings, are
known as static
quality. I'd like to add that this view is much more ancient than
SOM or any
metaphysical system ... that this truth can be experienced
directly and
that such an encounter is known as a mystical experience. Its not
so much
that DQ has spirits in it, its just that the ineffable,
undefinable ground
of being has been known by many names, many different metaphors
have been
used to refer to it and so calling this source of creation a
spiritual realm
or reality is just as good (or bad) as any name. Its easy to
think of the
undifferentiated aesthetic continuum as the un-manifested
ubiquitous force
that supports and fills our everyday static reality.'
(I am not sure about your dating of the birth of the intellectual
level. That's what I left out of this quote. First things first:
let's first see if we can agree on a way of distinguishing
levels.
I am not sure either about 'the social level, especially the
unconscious, [being] the source of all mythological systems and
all religions'. I tend to associate those more with the
intellectual level, but discussing that also has to await
agreement on distinguishing levels.)
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:01:50 BST