Re: MD levels

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 06 2002 - 16:05:32 GMT

  • Next message: jhmau: "Re: MD levels"

    Hi Wim:

    > So I again ask you to -please- answer:
    > How and from which passages do you conclude that intellectual patterns of
    > value arose simultaneously with the social level and that the arising of
    > intellectual patterns of value doesn't imply that the intellectual level
    > arose?

    Since you insist, here are the relevant passages:

    When intellect arose: "The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never
    been to discover an ultimate meaning of the universe. That is a relatively
    recent fad. Its historical purpose has been to help a society find food,
    detect danger, and defeat enemies."(24)

    When the intellectual level arose: "Or, within historical time, the day
    Socrates tried to establish the independence of intellectual patterns
    from their social origins." (22)

    When the intellectual level became a separate level: "What had
    happened since the end of World War I was that the intellectual level
    had entered the picture and had taken over everything." (24).

    > Regarding the value of adding to the MoQ the distinction between 'interior'
    > (experience, awareness?) and 'exterior' (appearance, phenomena?) and the
    > risk of thus re-introducing subject-object analysis into the MoQ, our
    > 'agreement to disagree' is indeed nicely summarized by you in: 'You see
    > problems that I don't see.' Let's leave it to others to judge whether I am
    > making mountains out of molehills or whether you are blind to serious
    > problems.

    Agree.

    > One last clarification (I hope) of my position:
    > I agree that Quality, when creating subjects and objects, may well create
    > more awareness in me of a horseshoe crab than in that horseshoe crab of me.
    > I agree that the increase of awareness over time in the most successful
    > species is a valuable addition to Darwinian evolution theory. BUT I think
    > that THAT type of 'awareness' is a typical SOM concept that shouldn't be
    > identified with the MoQ concepts 'direct experience' and 'value'. That
    > progressively increasing type of awareness is just a deduced (indirect)
    > experience that is created by Quality/'direct experience'/'value'. That
    > improved version of Darwinian evolution theory is still part of SOM based
    > science. The very next conclusion will be that this horseshoe crab's
    > awareness of me is not very accessible and therefore not very relevant to
    > us. It can better be ignored in favor of a high quality 'objective'
    > description of its exterior aspect and in favor of a meticulous comparison
    > of that description with my awareness of that horseshoe crab.

    I agree that your awareness is more important than a horseshoe crab's,
    but I presume the crab is also possessed by Quality and has direct
    experience of value, albeit in a biological, horseshoe crab way. So I see
    no reason why I can't accurately say the crab experiences Quality
    events and is "aware" without automatically dropping into the dreaded
    vipers nest of SOM concepts.

    More importantly, you wrote something in a post to Sam of 4 Dec. that
    struck me as a basic premise in your approach to the MoQ:

    "For me it is the 'contradictory identity' of humans with humanity and
    with creation as a whole, the experience of the divine as 'something' that
    connects everyone and everything 'shining through' the experience of
    diversity and conflict."

    This idea of "Divine One through Many" reminded me of one of my
    favorite passages by Aziz Nasafi:

    "On the death of any living creature the spirit returns to the spiritual
    world, the body to the bodily world. In this, however, only the body is
    subject to change. The spiritual world is one single spirit who stands
    like unto light behind the bodily world and who, when any single
    creature comes into being, shines through it as through a window.
    According to the kind and size of the window, less or more light enters
    the world. The light itself remains unchanged."

    If I'm right that our underlying beliefs match in a fundamental way, our
    differences in our approach and understanding of the MoQ are mere
    ripples in an ocean.

    Platt

    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 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 06 2002 - 16:09:40 GMT