From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 09:36:51 BST
Hi Sam, thanks for the welcome.
On 1 Jul you wrote:
> I think it one of the arguments against the 'standard' account that
> there is no consensus, even an approximate one, about the fourth level
> of the MoQ, after so much discussion. However, I wanted to throw a
> question at you relating your SOLAQI hypothesis and my eudaimonic one.
About the "standard" account, yes! I noticed the eudaimonic thread that
went on and on in April? but I did not read anything too closely at that time.
Would you care to give me a sketch of it.
> If 'thinking' (of any sort) is no longer seen as the defining
> attribute of the fourth level, but the 'autonomous individual' is
> instead, then would you agree that, once that new 'choosing
> unit/static latch' is in place, the possibility for SOL is opened up,
> ie that's where there is a possibility of me/not me? I think I would
> see subject/object thinking as an early phase within level 4, ie the
> fruits of autonomy within one particular area, the intellectual one,
> from which the MoQ itself is an improvement. So it is a different type
> of thinking, which can only operate at the higher level, rather than
> being the essential attribute of that higher level itself.
Yes the autonomous individual aligns well with the S/O intellect - perfectly
well. Which one came first is a chicken/egg problem, but I would not object
to autonomy being first. In a reply to Paul I said that the "me/not me" isn't
the S/O divide (an pointed to the biological immune system) but in a
metaphysical sense it certainly was a prerequisite and IMO equal to
"autonomy"! You know Julian Jaynes (bicameral) idea that about 3000 years
ago mankind "got" self-awareness. In a moq context ..changed from social
to intellectual focus. IMO this autonomy/self/not self/me/not me came "of
age" with the Greek thinkers as the search for what was permanent different
from opinion, something that cemented into the subject/object metaphysics
...which is its STATIC value, before it was a mere dynamic social pattern.
After writing this I saw your message to Scott R. about "thinking" Excellent! I
once said that this diffuse quality is the dynamic aspect of existence. Your
brain-boggling inquiry reveals that it is impossible to define it.
A "Metaphysics of Thinking" (MOT) can be added to the long list of
alternative "groundstuffs" - and their respective metaphysics - that has been
suggested up through the years. But Quality is best! Squonk's rage is
understandable in such a context, I deface the DQ as he sees it.
Sincerely.
Bo
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 Jul 03 2003 - 09:37:59 BST