Re: MD Event and level hierarchies opposite?

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 20:57:18 BST

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD Structuralism in Pirsig"

    Hi Phyllis,

    Someone here broke down the hot stove quality experience in chronological
    order, i think it went something like this:
    first, the inorganic physical laws of thermodynamics happen, and heat is
    transmitted to the seat of the pants.
    second, the biological nerve cells signal heat recognition
    third, the social level kicks in when the person yells "damn that's hot" or
    whatever phrase occurs to their socialized mind, and jumps off the stove,
    trying to look blase about it.
    fourth, the intellect thinks about what just happened and proposes some laws
    about dangerous hot stoves.

    The intellect doesn't get news of the hot stove until it has passed through
    those other levels. Also, mystical experiences, where they say DQ is most
    directly experienced by people, are not intellectual but are certainly
    social or biological. And love and passion can be cooled off by
    intellectualizing about them, an intellectual love is almost not love at
    all. Intellectuals are the "sad sacks" who have to resort to immoral sex or
    drugs to feel personally in touch with quality, because the intellectual
    patterns they think about are built over them, not in them or around them
    like biological and social quality is, and may in fact interfere with social
    quality perception by distracting them and clouding the mind ("What are you
    always thinking about" said the sad distanced lover). The intellectual
    patterns just use intellectuals as vessals for their contninuing existence
    and evolution, and the feeling of a DQ response happens to the whole
    pattern, not to the vessals, which become "sad sacks" prone to
    intellectualize quality events rather than experience them. No one person
    is "in charge" of democracy or freedom, those patterns evolve to their own
    accord. Whereas social patterns, like love and friendship and commitment,
    are personally experienced by the vessals that propogate them, and
    biological events obviously take place within the person even more
    immediately.

    Well, I suppose democracy and freedom of speech are personally experienced,
    but I've always felt those were social patterns anyhow. At least when they
    are actually practiced, they are social patterns, and only when they are
    concieved of intellectually (which they needn't have been, i don't think)
    are they intellectual patterns.

    Johnny S. Moral

    >From: "phyllis bergiel" <neilfl@worldnet.att.net>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    >Subject: Re: MD Event and level hierarchies opposite?
    >Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 22:27:17 -0500
    >
    >Hi Johnny:
    > >
    > > We often talk about nearness to DQ when talking about experience, and
    > > furthest evolved toward DQ when talking about levels. I think I've
    >heard
    >it
    > > said that the Intellectual level is the furthest evolved toward DQ. Yet
    > > when we talk about experience, we often note that the intellect is the
    >last
    > > thing to get the direct experience of DQ, the "quality event" is
    > > pre-intellectual.
    > >
    > > Is there anything to this apparent opposite hierarchy of nearness to DQ
    >of
    > > the the levels versus experience? Perhaps the intellect, realizing it
    >is
    > > removed from DQ, tries to create its own patterns to get it back to DQ,
    > > whereas inorganic reactions are so close to pure DQ experience that
    >atoms
    > > don't feel any need to "evolve" to get something back that they never
    >lost?
    > >
    >Sorry to be the voice of dissent again, but I believe the biological and
    >the
    >social levels are much more removed (or mediated) timewise than the
    >intellectual and DQ. Evolution and social acceptance seem to occur much
    >more slowly than intellectual reasoning building the argument for
    >assimilating the DQ with a static latch, don't you think?
    >
    >phyllis
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >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
    >

    _________________________________________________________________
    Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

    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 : Thu May 29 2003 - 20:58:02 BST