On 30 Mar 2002 at 16:20, Wim Nusselder wrote:
> Dearest Bo,
> How can you suspect ME of wanting you to shut up?!? I only asked you
> to be consistent. Stating your MoQ to be BOTH a (rebel) intellectual
> pattern of values AND 'beyond intellect' grates against MY logical
> nerve.
Good, I found it a bit unlike Wim. Anyway, according to the MOQ all value
levels started as a pattern of the previous one, so for how long it was a "rebel"
and when it "took off on a purpose of its own" isn't easy to decide, but there is
no inconsistency in it. In prospect a pattern seems forever part of its parent, in
retrospect it showed its true nature very early.
> Dogma's can state all kinds of illogical things seen from the
> perspective of higher level intellectual patterns of values.
Well, whatever perspective ill logic is illogical.
> A new
> metaphysics, the 'indisputable core' of a new intellectual pattern of
> values, changes the nature of logic and in a sense (re)creates
> 'reality' indeed.
Exactly what I try to convey ...f.ex. to Glenn (in vain it seems).
> Only direct experience, the 'cutting edge of
> experience' stays the same. Intellectual patterns of values with
> Subject-Object Metaphysics at their core create both objective and
> subjective 'reality'. Idealistic intellectual patterns of values
> consider subjective 'reality' to be 'Reality' that explains objective
> 'reality' and direct experience, which they consider to be delusive.
> Materialist intellectual patterns of values on the other hand consider
> objective 'reality' to be 'Reality' that explains subjective 'reality'
> and direct experience, which they consider to be delusive.
This is a splendid description of the nature of the SOM, but I notice your
"...subject-object metaphysical at their core ..." , why not just see the
intellectual level as SOM, what is inside of a core?
> Before
> Subject-Object Metaphysics reigned Multiple Subject Metaphysics:
Again, why such complications just to avoid the natural conclusion?
> early
> humans were able to distinguish different (human or divine, individual
> or collective) actors with different subjective 'realities' which
> explained their otherwise confusing direct experience. They were able
> to choose between (identify with or participate in) different
> subjective 'realities'.
This is a splendid description of the SOCIAL experience.
> Quality Metaphysics is the core of a rebel
> intellectual pattern of values. It recreates 'reality'. It considers
> Quality to be 'Reality'.
Agree! It's the core of a rebel intellectual pattern, but not of intellect.
> Quality contains (consists of) static quality
> and Dynamic Quality and direct experience is identified with DQ. For
> the first time in metaphysical history direct experience gets the
> status of 'Reality' (even if shared with static quality)! Also for the
> first time intellect doesn't postulate something 'Real' that explains
> delusive direct experience. In stead it postulates an explaining
> mechanism (migration and latching of patterns of values) in which
> direct experience participates. It is not a passive explained category
> any more.
I am impressed by your understanding Wim - truly - and go along with you
almost all the way, it's just the point that the "pattern migration explanation"
can't remain [fully] intellectual after such an about face. It upends everything
that the Intellect has stood for before. The "core value" of a level can't change
like that, it's supposed to be STATIC!!! ....unless viewed as a container of
ideas that may hold anything, but from what you write you haven't fallen into
that trap.
> MoQ centered patterns of values are still intellectual patterns of
> values. They (re)create 'reality' as all intellectual patterns of
> values do.
Yes, intellect re-created social reality (value), but it can't re-create its own
core .....without fostering a rebel pattern which it (or DQ) has done.
> Multiple Subject Metaphysics centered patterns of values
> are intellectual patterns of values also. They differ from social
> patterns of values, because social patterns of values don't allow for
> 'reflection'. Social patterns of values only involve thoughtless
> copying of behavior: habits if it is one's own past behavior that is
> copied, material culture it is behavior of (high status) others that
> is copied.
Even social value grew to a complexity that could support Intellect, and what
you call Multiple Subject Metaphysics are the high social patterns that finally
spawned Intellect.
> Intellect creates 'reality', patterns of ideas. Society
> creates groups, patterns of behavior. Metaphysics, first indisputable
> ideas, only exist at the intellectual level.
Intellect created the objective/subjective distinction and upholds it (look to
DMB's post in the Mall-of-Ideas thread) before there were no such distinction
(see below*), but I naturally stone age people had an explanation of their
experience and it was this MYTH that created the group feeling. Again I feel
you "slander" our ancestors and make them little better than robots.
Anyway, this was a great post Wim, one that you obviously have worked hard
on. I really appreciated your effort.
Bo
*) ZAMM (p.366 Corgi Books)
"Up to then what was imperisjhable was within the
domain of the Gods, the myth, but now as a result of
the growing impartiality (objectivity) of the Greeks to
the world around them, there was an increasing power
of abstraction which permitted them to regard the old
mythos not as revealed truth but as imgaginative
(subjective)creations of art. This consciousness, which
had never existed anywhere before in the world, spelled
a whole new level (Here P. has a "premonition" of the
MOQ) of transcendence for the Greek sivilization". My
brackets.
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 - 16:02:09 BST