Re: MD mental and neural states

From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 10:33:59 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "Re: MD Metaphysics of Quality: An oxymoron?"

    Hi Wim,

    > Sam wrote 29 Oct 2002 07:56:14 -0000 that he had a good deal of agreement
    > with my statements that it is better to speak of 'adding people/societies
    to
    > 4th level patterns of value' than of 'adding 4th level values to
    > people/societies' and 'that it is not people or societies that "become"
    4th
    > level patterns of values (that wrongly reifies patterns of values), but
    > people or societies that start experiencing 4th level patterns of values
    > (their experience bringing them into being)'. He added then:
    > 'I wonder how far it would be fair to describe someone being added to
    > fourth level patterns of values as being
    > "born again"'.

    My thinking is still evolving. At the moment I'm minded to say that the
    'autonomous individual' IS the pattern of the fourth level, ie the static
    latch, and therefore that the fourth level pattern is a Wim or a Sam or a
    Scott (or even a DMB ;-) ) from which intellectual or virtuous patterns are
    structured, rather than that the fourth level is composed of intellectual
    patterns, within which individuals participate and which are structured by
    those patterns. So I'm not sure I would still say what I said on 29 Oct.

    > If both of you (still) agree with what I wrote and with Pirsig's
    > identification of consciousness and intellectual patterns of value in
    > 'Lila's Child', would you agree
    > 1) that the intellectual level is something that exists once intellectual
    > patterns of value are experienced by some humans,
    No, not really. See above. I might still be indulging in excessive
    reification, but I don't think so.

    > 2) that intellectual static quality, i.e. the value of the stability and
    > versatility of intellectual patterns of value, doesn't come in degrees
    > during the evolution of the MoQ levels, but once and for all at the moment
    > that the intellectual level was first experienced by humans,
    Disagree. I think there are lots of degrees.

    > 3) that individual human development can best be understood as a
    succession
    > of 'births' and periods of being brought up to full participation into
    > successively the biological, the social and the intellectual level and ...
    This seems OK.

    > 4) that 'intellectual patterns of value' and 'the intellectual level' can
    be
    > substituted by 'consciousness'?

    I'd prefer 'autonomy', but I think that consciousness is tied in with it,
    so, broadly, yes.

    Sam

    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 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 10:50:58 BST