-----Original Message-----
From: Wim Nusselder [mailto:wim.nusselder@antenna.nl]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 3:32 PM
To: MD
Subject: Re: MD 3rd level blues
Wim wrote...
Please accept my condolences on the death of your father-in-law.
Death is a meaningful part of life...
DMB SAYS...
Thanks. He was such a great guy. Kind, generous and super smart, a
world-class Physicists with a heart of gold. Everyone in the family is
mostly just relieved because suffered from ALS for so long. We all began the
grieving process a couple of years ago. Anyway, thanks.
Wim 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.
DMB replies...
No, I'm sorry. Actually, your response was the most direct. And your
additions are constructive. I was trying to get very specific by making just
two points about one issue, the nature of social level. I very much prefered
the other focused forum because this one can be so scattered, but its
apparently gone now. My general frustration with the lack of focus landed in
your lap. Please forgive.
Wim suggests...
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.
DMB says...
Ask questions instead of make points? Hmmm. Maybe that would help. I'll try
that.
1) Is there anything in the universe that is not both an individual entity
AND part of a larger collective system? If so, what is it? If not, why not?
2) In what ways can intellectual pursuits like Jungian psychology,
comparative mythology and comparative religious studies shed light on the
more ancient social level?
And to be more topical...
3) In what ways do the actions of fundamentalist terrorists contradict
intellectual values? And in what ways do the policies of the current U.S.
administration, the ones implemented in response, contradict intellectual
values?
Wim says...
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)
DMB responds with...
Hmmm. I don't see the difference between static latches and static patterns.
I think all things and beings are static latches, by definition. If its not
dead, extinct or otherwise dissovled, it is statically latched. That's what
static patterns are. That's what it means to be preserved, to continue
existing is to be statically latched. I think Pirsig uses the word "latch"
to describe creative additions that actually take hold in the world, to
describe the ones that can persist in time, unlike this thread. ;-)
Wim adds...
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)?
DMB comes back with...
You don't like PB?! What are you some kind of communist?!? Just kidding. 3WD
gets credit for the graphic. OK. Cool. Thanks, Dave. Its true to the graphic
in one of Wilber's books.
I can see why you might not be satisfied, Wim. It seems to me that Wilber is
more specific, and can therefore be more detailed. He's focused on the
evolution of consciousness, not the evolution of the whole universe like
Pirsig is. But I think its very exciting that they are so compatable, they
compliment each other in such a way that Pirsig is better with a little
Wilber on top and Wilber is better with some Pirsig smeared over it, thus my
peanut butter and jelly analogy.
Wim...
(I am not sure about your dating of the birth of the intellectual
level. First things first: let's first see if we can agree on a way
of distinguishing levels.
DMB...
I don't recall dating the birth of that level, but just for the record let
me say I have no problem with Pirsig on this; Socrates gave birth to it and
it started taking charge right after the first world war.
WIM...
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.)
DMB...
I'd certainly put comparative mythology and comparative religious studies at
the intellectual level, but its safe to say that myths and religions existed
long before Socrates. It seems that a simple and clear way to tell if
something belongs to the 3rd or 4th level is to determine its age. That
won't always work because cultural evolution continues to this day, but if
its older than Socrates you'd have a very hard time persuading me that's its
a feature of the intellectual level. This can be formulated as a question
too: Are there any intellectual values older than Socrates?
Pirsig says...
"Mental patterns ... originate out of society ... what a mind thinks is
dominated by social patterns. ... Our intellectual description of nature is
always culturally derived." pg.179.
DMB
Pirsig expresses this same idea in correcting Descartes, who can think only
because French culture exists. (I can think only because French toast
exists.) I want to inject Jung, Campbell and others into our discussion, not
because I wish to impose my pet theories but because understanding thinkers
like them can shed so much light on the 3rd level. These are the thinkers
who say that all myths and religions are the products of the unconscious.
And I think that their contribution can clarify a major trouble spot. Not to
mention the help Pirsig lends to understanding them. Not to mention the
contributions they all make to understanding yourself and the present
historical battles between social and intellectual values.
Dreams, myths and religions all share a common language, so to speak. They
repeatedly exhibit the same images, motifs, and senarios. And this is why
Julian Jaynes' flashlight analogy isn't a show stopper. The unconscious mind
sends up clues and messages so that we need not go looking for the darkness
with a flashlight. Clearly, the truely unconscious elements will always
remain a mystery, but we can see the effects of it, the fruits of it, and
that's rich enough.
Looking forward to more of this,
DMB
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