From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Fri Dec 06 2002 - 19:30:26 GMT
On Thurs 05 Dec 2002 1:42 PM Wim Nusselder @ antenna. nl writes:
Hi Wim,
> Dear Mari,
>
> In reply to my statement:
> 'In my MoQ a level comes into being when a new type of patterns of value
> comes into being.'
> you asked 4 Dec 2002 09:00:52 -0500:
> 'What makes "new" happen? Does it happen when one recognizes it? When more
> than one agrees that "new" has occurred? Is there an amount, a degree of
> change from a previous pattern to make it jump levels? Is it quantum
> relative? And what does "type" mean? Doesn't "type" infer "pattern" in a
> manner of speaking?'
>
> In my version of the MoQ a 'new pattern of value' is 'new' because it is
> recognized as such and it is a 'pattern' because the 'newness' doesn't
occur
> just once. In theory repeated occurrences of 'newness' that are recognized
> as
> 'the same' by only one person are a pattern of value. The most relevant
> (most stable and most versatile patterns of value) are recognized by more
> persons however.
> It is not the amount/degree of change of patterns of value that makes a
> level jump; it is a whole new 'type' of pattern, a new way of maintaining
> stability in patterned experience, a new way of static latching for
> 'value'/'Quality' when creating recognizable patterns, a way that didn't
> exist before (elementary particles, DNA, copyable habits, copyable
motives).
> 'Quantum relative' has no meaning for me. What do you mean with it?
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
On Sat 22 Jun 2002 - 22:08:43 BST Wim Nusselder "Re: MD Science and myth"
wrote:
<snip>
"I prefer astrology to the enneagram, because 10 subconscious motives
(symbolized by 8 planets, sun and moon) expressing themselves through 12
types of filters (symbolized by 12 signs of the zodiac) in 12 aspects of
life (symbolized by 12 houses or segments of the sky) enable me to paint a
more complex picture of a unique human being than only 9 segments of an
enneagram."
>With friendly greetings,
>Wim
joe:When I read your statement of preference for astrology over the
enneagram I was surprised. I have waited until now, sitting on my surprise,
to compose my thoughts. As I understand SOM, it is based on a division of
existence. Words and ideas only exist in the mind-subjective existence.
Things exist outside the mind-objective existence. In chapter 8 of Lila
p112 in my book Persig writes:
"Phaedrus remembered reading about an experiment with special glasses that
made users see everything upside down and backward. Soon their minds
adjusted and they began to see the world 'normally' again. After a few
weeks, when the glasses were removed, the subjects again saw everything
upside down and had to relearn the vision they had taken for granted before.
"The same is true of subjects and objects. The culture in which we live
hands us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret experience with, and the
concept of the primacy of subjects and objects is built right into these
glasses....."
joe:imo in my experience I instinctively know existence. No way can I prove
that god exists. Purpose, also, in my experience is only known
instinctively. I can't prove that I am going to the store. I act on my
purpose. Persig's analogy of culture-glasses rings true. "Earth is a
thousand-togued hydra." I will explore the analogy of culture-glasses. I
hate using glasses, it makes me seem weak! If I don't use my glasses I
don't see clearly, and not being able to read road signs is a hazard. I
never tell anyone that I am confused. I know people who hide using glasses
by wearing contact lenses. Some change their vision through eye operations.
Some, like Lila, are blind to certain things, but see better than anyone
else in other matters.
To me the MoQ culture provides three sets of glasses, clear, rose-colored,
and blue-colored. I use rose-colored contacts to distinguish existence,
purpose, and dynamic quality. This is the instinctive sensing of reality.
As a baby I used rose-colored glasses to create patterns. I use clear
contacts to distinguish quality which is part experience (dq) and part
pattern (sq). For example, I talk about existence, purpose, dq and the
hearer only gets the pattern (sq). I have blue-colored contacts to
distinguish revelation, like astronomy and the enneagram. I have to have
faith.
I have a question whether dementia and Alzheimer's disease simply destroys
my glasses? Ordinarily I do not think I use glasses since everything is so
well integrated into my outlook. I am surrounded by culture, and I want to
fit in. In a way I have lost my glasses, but I can learn to look for them
if I see the need. Persig has exposed the need. I, however, have to make
the effort to look for them. Education is important.
Here is an example of glasses determining meaning. (clear) From the
instinctive sense of purpose I say that evolution has a purpose.(clear) Do I
experience evolution or growth? (rose-colored) From the pattern of purpose
I say that value has increased when the inorganic order evolves to the
organic order. (clear) Though I have many parts I am still one person.
(rose) I have a new ability to communicate to others. (blue) If I talk
without referencing my glasses then the listener suspends judgements and
trusts what I say. (blue) Certainty is not evoked. (nonsense) I have to
remind myself to put on one pair or the other. (blue) The whole process of
distinguishing how I use culture glasses is unclear. (analogy) Bah!
(expletive)
Astrology and the enneagram are revelation seen through blue glasses. Do
these glasses let me see that there is a process in evolution? While the
dividing line between the social and intellectual orders may be clear now,
at the first jump no one knows when the process begins nor ends. I think of
three culture glasses. I think of making music. With my blue glasses on I
believe that the enneagram is description of the interaction of these in the
process of change or evolution. The harmony of the spheres according to the
Pythagorians is part of this process or maybe just a memory taken out of
context.
I have read THE GNOSTIC CIRCLE by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, but I don't
have her awe of numbers!
Joe
>
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 - 19:25:00 GMT