From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 08:00:13 BST
Dear Steve (and Sam and Johnny),
On your request (26 May 2003 14:37:45 -0400) a short reply, even though I
try to concentrate my limited time on 'grilling Sam' on his idea of
'eudaimonia' as characterizing level 4 at the moment. (-:
You were describing only 3 levels when you wrote:
'If a person's sense of self is not yet differentiated from the physical
world (does not see it's body as self and the pillow as not self) it is not
inorganically aware (Piaget's sensory motor level). If a person's sense of
self is not differentiated from emotions and physical sensations (e.g. the
universe is not pain itself right now, only my self is feeling pain) then
that person has not developed biological awareness. If a person's identity
is not differentiated from a social role, then this person has not yet
developed intellectual awareness (or so my child development hypothesis
goes).'
If you agree that there are 4 levels, the logic of what you wrote demands
that you substitute 'social awareness' for 'intellectual awareness' in the
last sentence. Which leaves to be described a person who has developed
social but not intellectual awareness...
I agree with you that 'identifying one's thinking with a larger group'
doesn't qualify one as [only] 'functioning at the social level' (as Sam
wrote). In my scheme of things we cannot speak of 'thinking' and of
'identifying' in the way we usually understand them when people function
only at the social level, i.e. if the highest patterns of value they
participate in are patterns of (unthinking) behavior copied from others.
So I don't think that 'identifying with [a group's] thinking' qualifies one
as [only] operating at the social level (as you wrote) either.
People functioning only at the social level as defined by me (who must be
either very young or mentally handicapped) have only a sense of 'belonging'.
They behave according to roles and they show recognition of different roles,
but they don't 'identify' with a role (nor with a group). They recognize
different individuals in their group (and themselves if they would see their
own reflection) by superficial characteristics and different patterns of
behavior (as a chimp does), but they don't experience themselves, let alone
others, as 'subjects' who 'choose'. They can (unlike most animals)
dissociate themselves from their emotions and physical sensations. So for
instance it is not (only) anger or aggression that makes a male face a
predator that threatens his family group, but his sense of belonging that
makes him overcome his fear. People functioning only at the social level can
build, maintain and pass on material culture (e.g. elaborate ways of making
the artifacts they need for survival) and thus 'society', unlike most
animals. They do not create 'myths' or any other stories, but when they have
passed the threshold of creating and participating in intellectual patterns
of value, the myths and stories they DO create describe (at first) only life
at the social level. So mythology IS a way to get a better understanding of
the social level (as David B. has been trying to impress upon us for ages).
Levels of awareness/consciousness/thinking etc. (like Wilber's ones) are
(very useful) subcategories of level 4. When we speak about 'awareness' of
the physical world, of sensations/emotions etc. in people (or even in
elementary particles) functioning only at lower than fourth levels, we are
only 'projecting down' an intellectual pattern of value. We are talking
about our (projected) experience, not about theirs.
So yes, Johnny, I do object to the word 'choice' in 'value choices made by
atoms and molecules' (as you supposed 15 May 2003 19:06:18 +0000). Static
patterns of value describe determination rather than free choice (as Dynamic
Quality does). We'd better think and describe them in terms of mechanisms
maintaining patterns that embody value.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 May 27 2003 - 08:01:01 BST