Re: MD awareness hierarchy?

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 21:13:10 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD The Transformation of Love"

    Dear all,

    I was very glad that Bodvar Skutvik replied to me off-list in this thread
    AND allowed me to forward it to the list.
    Squonk, if you are tempted to redirect your ad hominem attacks from David B.
    to Bodvar again, please address them to me, because without me Bodvar
    wouldn't have sent this to the list.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
    Van: Bodvar Skutvik
    Aan: Wim Nusselder
    CC: Steve Peterson
    Verzonden: vrijdag 13 juni 2003 14:52
    Onderwerp: Re: MD awareness hierarchy

    Dear Wim and Steve,

    I count my blessings and being mentioned is one. As said I look into the
    archives from time to time and if spotting an interesting topic I open the
    letters and was pleased to see this dialogue between you and Steve.
    Tremendously pleased to see that Steve tends to (or inadvertently straying)
    towards my own opinion which is: Intellect's value is that of distinguishing
    between what is "objective" and what is "subjective" (i.e. reason) therefore
    Q-intellect is SOM and the Quality Idea is a rebel SOM pattern.

    Steve said: (about the Quality level or "pattern")

    > 'Perhaps, this level is the level on which one searches for the "ghost of
    > reason" as Phaedrus did in ZAMM. Would this be a "trans-rational" level?
    > Perhaps there are no static patterns to follow on this level, yet.
    > Do you see the MOQ as "trans-rational"?'

    Correct! "Searching for the ghost of reason" is only possible from a point
    slightly offset to reason. Mind you, there has been a lot of protests
    against
    the mind/matter divide, but no-one has identified it as a world-view (or
    SOM)
    and for that reason ineffective, because the protestants have been solidly
    within the SOM premises themselves. Only Pirsig has seen this context and
    offered a valid alternative.

    Not very static yet in the sense that a great number of people are moqists,
    but it has started to take hold so in a few centuries ..!

    > Unlike Bodvar Skutvik (who regrettably doesn't participate actively any
    more
    > in this list, I fear after getting to much criticism).

    Partly from criticism, I was plain exhausted.

    > I don't see the MoQ as
    > a static pattern of value on a 5th level. (Neither does Pirsig.) As long
    as
    > (those we brand as) SOM practitioners and MoQ practitioners can discuss
    with
    > each other about the relative merits of different metaphysics (or ways of
    > summarizing other narratives), they function on the same 4th level as
    > alternative 'rationales'.

    Well put dear Wim, but can moqists and somists really discuss? I have
    never met anyone who admits to being a "somist" because the SOM
    strategy is denying any such distinction. You are right when writing.....:

    > An intellectual entity (a member of homo sapiens) is aware of
    > inorganic, biological and social forces, but unaware of intellectual
    forces,
    > so follows intellectual laws.

    In my "lingo" .......:

    A somist knows of inorganic, biological and social facts (these are the
    objective part of his existence), but doesn't recognize the MOQ (which is
    seeing these as reality levels and - most important - seeing the opponent as
    SOM) thus "unaware of intellectual forces" (SOM)

    Also, there is a chasm between the MOQ and the SOM which corresponds
    to the chasms between the levels which proves .....

    Wim ctd:
    > I indeed don't think there is a 5th level of static patterns of value.
    Moral
    > behavior beyond the 4th level (freedom from 4th level patterns of value)
    is
    > therefore always temporary, dependent on momentary and erratic DQ
    > experiences.

    Well, you admit to DQ at work on (what I call) the "outer fringes" of
    intellect,
    so why shouldn't a superintellectual like Phaedrus (of ZAMM) who pursued
    reason to the limit inadvertently trespass its borders? This is exactly what
    happened and from outside he was able to the see the SOM as a myth while
    somists are unable to fathom a reality outside reason, yet most willing to
    look
    upon social reality as a myth ...THE MYTH in fact.

    Sincerely yours
    Bodvar

    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 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 21:15:52 BST