On 22 Jun 2002 at 17:26, Wim Nusselder wrote:
> Dear Bo,
> You know that for me the intellectual level is NOT identical to valuing the
> distinction between subjects and objects (as for you)
Dear Wim
Your definition of Q-intellect (below) is quite a "lead balloon".
> but with patterns of
> values which we are aware of and which are reflected in chosen behavior
> (actions).
.....aware of? If a monkey recognize itself in a mirror isn't it "aware" to some extent? And if it
acts according to this awareness and tries to remove a paint spot on its forehead is that Q-
Intellect? I must pose this simple questions because you - and many other - have a
tendency to make statements so complex that it impossible to make head or tail of them.
The following is a refutation of my S/O intellect I suppose?
> 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.
Not as you see it, I understand that much :-).
> 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).
I can't for the life of me understand what Q-intellect was before the S/O logic and for the
umpteenth time: What is described in ZAMM (as the emergence of SOM) can as easily be
interpreted as the emergence of the intellectual level. What you here call "multi-subject" IS
the Social Level. If it was Q-intellect there isn't room for any social level, it's straight from
biology to "mind". In other words SOM!
> 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
"Qualitatively different" says it all.
> 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.
Of course they speak from a SOM p.o.v. (who outside this small group don't?) it's us that
must translate it into moqish and I think it really fits the Social-Intellectual transition.
> 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'.
Hurray, somebody finally noticing this!!!!
> 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.
"Subconscious" sounds a bit psycho-analytic (Freudian) "Aware's" opposite is "unaware"
(according to the dictionary).
> 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?
I understand your interpretation of Q-intellect only too well. My point is that these somish
(mind, consciousness, awareness .... etc.) terms are T H E great obstacle to understanding
the MOQ. If brought to bear on it with their SOM load intact they wreck havoc. Pirsig says -
for instance - that the term mind "....should be avoided", but that is not possible. They must
find some place under MOQ's auspices, and my great achievement (humble as ever) is that
they are the Intellectual level. Understand me correctly: Along with their opposite - they are
Intellect.
And if we manage to see Intellect from a MOQ perspective which is beyond intellect, it's a
fantastic achievement, but if/when we use intellect's "aware/unaware"......dee/daa..terms as if
it applies to the TOTAL MOQ they destroy it. Won't anyone ever understand?
> With friendly greetings,
If we cross into the Netherlands I'll think of you :-)
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 - 16:02:20 BST