Re: MD interaction between levels - ?

From: MarshaV (marshalz@i-2000.com)
Date: Sat Sep 04 2004 - 12:03:19 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: RE; MD the individual in the MOQ"

    Hi.  I don't know anything.  Except that I don't know anything.  Another dream I had that I was someone like Icarus.  I was flying through the air, and my gossamer dress caught on fire.  In the dream I thought, "Wow!  I'm like Icarus.", and woke up.  

    I have a question.  Why does it have to be hierarchical?  Why can't the 'four levels' be four major systems that interact with each other?  Interconnected.  There can still exist the respect for the old stability and the new freedom. 

    Where can I find the references to 'latch'?

    MarshaV 

    P.S.  There is some interesting stuff said about how the mind physically changes  the brain, moments of volition and a suggestion of how mindfulness can make a difference. It's the book 'The Mind & Brain', by Jeffrey M. Schwartz.  The book references some experiments which provides preliminary proof.  I believe there are some challenges too, mainly from materialists.  It was very interesting. 

     




    At 07:27 PM 9/3/2004 -0400, you wrote:
    Mark 3-9-04: The MOQ says levels are disrete. But they do interact in two stated ways: 1. A higher level values a lower level as that from which the higher level escapes. 2. A higher level values a lower level as that which is required for stability.
    These interations appear to be contradictory? But, if we introduce our old friend coherence, it may be seen that coherence is the best relationship between freedom and stability.
    Hi Ilya,
    I wish to expand on the above because we are moving into an area i have been thinking about and it intruiges me.
     
    Allow me to restate the above points:
    1. A higher level values a lower level as that from which the higher level escapes.
    2. A higher level values a lower level as that which is required for stability.
    1 is a Dynamic move forward into the unknown.
    2 is a requirement for survival - without the lower level for support, higher levels cannot survive.
     
    There is something i wish to emphasise about these points. We may reverse the point of view and look at this from a lower level vantage, but they are not symmetrical. Here is what i mean:
     
    3. A lower level values a higher level as that from which the lower level must protect itself.
    4. A lower level values a higher level as that which may provide stability.
     
    3 is search for latching.
    4 is an effort to use Dynamic advance as a way of supporting a latch.
     
    Let us apply your example of hypnosis:
     
    1. A higher level values a lower level as that from which the higher level escapes.
    Nullifying biological pain frees intellectual patterns to respond to DQ more. Try sitting an exam with toothache.
    2. A higher level values a lower level as that which is required for stability.
    Intellectual patterns involved in the exam room need a biological and social human pattern to be there in the first place.
    3. A lower level values a higher level as that from which the lower level must protect itself.
    Toothache is a good warning sign that a life threatening illness is to be avoided. If intellect chooses to nullify the and avoid the warning pain then they will dissipate upon biological death.
    4. A lower level values a higher level as that which may provide stability.
    Dentists are social and intellectual patterns and they cure pathalogical biological patterns.
     
    I'm still thinking about all this!
    All the best,
    Mark
     
    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 : Sat Sep 04 2004 - 13:24:40 BST