From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 21:44:57 BST
Hi Steve,
> >Also, could you explain a bit more what you mean by
> > "balance?" Do you mean an even split among the levels, 25 percent
> > inorganic, 25 percent biological, etc.
>
> I tell you the perfect balance if you'll kindly define Quality for me. ;-)
> It's the same issue, isn't it?
Quality is what you know before you know anything else.
> Personally, I feel that I am too dominated by the intellectual level.
> (This does not mean that I think I'm too smart. I feel fortunate and
> humbled by the opportunity to communicate on this list with so many people
> with far more brain power than I can muster on my best day.) It means I
> don't have all the levels of Steve in balance. It means I actually have to
> remind myself to return the question when one of my coworkers passes me in
> the hall and says, "how are you?" The question doesn't come naturally for
> me at all, probably because I generally don't really care about the answer
> ("care is the internal view of Quality," or something like that in ZAMM).
>
> I often feel awkward in social situations and I really wish that I could
> replicate the copied social responses that others perform so smoothly;
> however, I certainly would not give up my intellectual awareness for social
> quality. That would be a form of suicide. Better to be an unhappy
> Socrates than a content pig, as someone said.
Your battles among levels are like my battles and Lila's battles. These
battles ebb and flow depending on circumstances and the person doing the
evaluating. Socially I consider myself nowhere, but because I'm
conservative, some peg me as social level simpleton. As for Quality
"caring," was that social level caring about other people? I don't think
so. It was caring about what you were doing at the moment so as to make it
a Quality experience.
> I don't think it's a matter of equal weight to each level. We have a
> hierarchy or what Wilber would call a holarchy since each higher level
> includes the lower ones. Lower levels need to be respected because they
> support the higher ones.
>
> To be dominated by intellect is to be dominated by that aspect of the
> intellectual level that is not social, biological, or inorganic. Any of
> the junior levels could suffer by such a domination causing the whole thing
> to collapse. If I engage in intellectual pursuits to the point that my
> health suffers, what have I gained? At least any gains would be short
> term.
Sometimes it's necessary to allow the social level to dominate when the
level is threatened by criminal biological forces, e.g. terrorism. If I
engage in intellectual pursuits to the point where society is taken over
by a bunch of thugs, what have I gained? Maybe the lesson of the battles
that go on within and without is to trust in Quality to tell us when to
stand, when to bend and when to run like a scared rabbit.
In any event, I think we basically agree that a "balance" of forces is
preferable to an overbearing dominance of any one, so long as that balance
doesn't fossilize.
Platt
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 : Mon May 26 2003 - 21:48:38 BST