Dear Bo,
You know that for me the intellectual level is NOT identical to valuing the
distinction between subjects and objects (as for you), but with patterns of
values which we are aware of and which are reflected in chosen behavior
(actions). Patterns of values centred around 'truth', accurate description
of objective reality, 'objectivity' and other values derived from the value
of the S/O-distinction are not the only patterns of values which we can be
aware of and which can be reflected in our actions. Before S/O-logic came to
dominate the intellectual level another type of logic was dominant in
motivations for action: multi-subject logic, in which all of reality was
experienced as animate. Motivating your actions with multi-subject logic
(e.g. with several Gods' voices in your head representing different options
to choose from) is every bit as intellectual according to me as the way we
use to motivate our actions, even if it represents a lower quality type of
intellectual pattern of values (as is evident from the fact that it doesn't
dominate present-day thinking any more).
The ideas of Barfield and Jaynes, about mythical thinking being
qualitatively different (experiencing different voices rather than 'I
thinking about other things') and about the bicameral mind are interesting
as descriptions of this multi-subject logic. They are also (from our MoQ
point of view) risky, however, because they tend to explain the difference
with our way of thinking with SOM-tools: as (new type of) mind out of (new
type of) matter.
You object against the association of 'consciousness' with Q-intellect and
support that 22/6 11:47 +0200 (again) with 'all creatures sleep and must
necessarily wake up to some reality different from sleep'.
I agree with your objection to the extent that 'consciousness' is understood
as the opposite of 'unconsciousness' and 'sleep'. It can however (if my
knowledge of English serves me well) also be understood as a synonym of
'awareness' with 'subconsciousness' as its opposite. I avoided the words
'conscious' and 'consciousness' in what I wrote above. Does that make my
interpretation of Q-intellect a bit more understandable and acceptable to
you?
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 - 16:02:20 BST