Hi Bo
Actually I have been reading and re-reading your posts and agreement between
us is so tantalizing close. I think the difference between us is on the
focus of the questions we ask. This was how I stated it to a reply to
Platt:
[Gary] "I believe this is all true. I am interested in asking the question:
How do
you come to know the structure of reality? That question yields a map of
reality that focuses on the process of gaining knowledge. Thus my map builds
out from inside a mind. My map focuses on internal/external,
private/public, words/things, maps/territory. What I am doing is
re-arranging the parts of Pirsig's map in order to answer a question other
than the one Pirsig asked and answered. I never intend to violate the rules
of MOQ I just am shifting its focus."
When I was replying to Scott I gave an analysis of how a book can be
examined using MOQ. Again, I use terms such as private/public,
internal/external, mind/matter. How would you do the same analysis of how a
book is created and then used using your model of MOQ? If you could do this
without reference to the terms internal/external , public/private,
mind/matter I would drop my language and use yours!
When you do such a process MOQ analysis things get awfully complicated and
messy! That is because we are engaging in taking a dynamic living
non-linear process and rendering it into a static dead linear description.
Please, please take the time to describe a book as I did in my august 16th
7:42 pm post. Just work on that and send it. I believe it will be
extremely important to you and to me. It could help me to understand your
position. If you can do it with out mind/matter, Internal/External,
public/private terms then you will truly enlightened me!!!
Waiting for illumination while sitting in the "darkness" of
Internal/External,
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
> On 15 Aug 2002 at 17:02, Gary Jaron wrote:
>
> > Hi Bo,
> > The 4th = mind, hence all internal to a single human.
> > The 3rd level has both a internal and exteranl
> > component. All the stuff that is internalized through
> > socialization and becomes the accepted norms and
> > values we beleive and the linguistic system we think
> > in, all this is internal 4th level stuff but it came
> > from society which is 3rd level.
>
> Hi Gary
> Awfully complicated this. The social level split into an external and an
> internal component? The latter being 4th level stuff yet coming from the
3rd
> level. No, dear Gary, once upon the time social reality was top notch and
it
> was not divided in any way - the external/internal is all somish rubbish -
and
> social value is as un-divided to-day as it was in paleolithic time.
>
> > I see 3rd level as the public arena. the interactions
> > of human beings.
> > Once a human communicates a 4th level emotion or
> > thought that act is a social event/act and it is 3rd
> > level stuff.
>
> The 3rd level as "public arena" and/or "interactions of human beings"
isn't
> very controversial, yet this value is terribly ancient, even Neanderthals
lived
> in societies and at that time it was communication by EMOTIONS (language
> and thus "thoughts" came with the Cro Magnons it is said).
>
> > 4th level is all internal mind.
> > 3rd can be accepted culture within a human mind, hence
> > 4th level and then all public interactivities of
> > humans.
>
> > Does this make sense?
>
> Not the way I see the MOQ!
>
> Don't mind me sounding so brusque, but I know no way of getting you on
> the MOQ track.
>
> 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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST