From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 08:23:04 BST
Hi Rick,
>R
>I think "built on societies" is wrong, "built on social patterns" is
>better.
OK, but I wasn't sure if some things built on social patterns would be other
social patterns. I like built on societies, because perhaps intellectual
patterns didn't develop until one society came into contact with another.
Or until people became aware that their society wasn't the only society
possible, there were other societies and why can't this one be different.
>J
> 4th level
> > patterns can't be formed of human individual biololgical patterns, or
>they'd
> > be third level too.
>
>R
>Not "individual biological patterns", it's "individual social patterns".
>Remember, a whole "culture" is just one kind of social pattern. That
>particular convergence of social roles that is grafted on to a given
>individual also constitutes a social pattern.
Oh I see what you mean. But those social roles, though they hang on
individuals, certainly aren't individual, lots of people share them, they
are defined by the person's relation to other people. I think the patterns
that evolve between social roles are also social patterns, kind of like the
relationship between foxes and chickens is still biological.
> > >R
> > >Remember that in the MoQ the term "Society" (as in Social Patterns...
>the
> > >3rd level), isn't defined as contra-individual, it's defined as
> > >contra-biological.
I'm not sure why "contra" is your choice of word. Each level is the
relationship of units of the lower level. They manipulate the lower level
units (societies, people, chemicals) for their own survival, but aren't
necessarily in conflict with it\\the lower level, which "contra" implies.
>J
> Social patterns are what evolve when more
> > than one biological pattern interact. The social patterns cause the
> > biological patterns to behave according to the social pattern, or they
> > should anyway. Intellectual patterns cause social patterns to behave
> > according to the intellectual pattern - they don't have a direct effect
>on
> > the human animal, they first filter through the social level.
>
>R
>Agreed.
How about the sentence I left out inadvertently: Intellectual patterns are
what evolve when more than one society interact? I'm suddenly afraid I
can't figure out how it works at the biological level: Biological patterns
are what evolve when more than one inorganic unit interact? But those would
usually be also inorganic patterns, just more complex. And they could
certainly be "contra" each other, so the descreteness isn't just a matter of
being "contra". I guess this is the defintion of life which has stumped
people for a long time. So perhaps the "about" defintion I kept repeating
makes sense at this level? If a pattern is *about* inorganic patterns, it
is a biological pattern? It gives it some level of purpose. Life, or
biology, is trying to manipulate inorganic patterns, it is about inorganic
patterns.
> > >And so why does it do it? Why does the whole diverge and create these
>rich
> > >and complex patterns of awareness? My only guess is... for the sheer
>fun
> > >of
> > >it.
>
>J
> > Because it should, the same reason all the way down. The original
>reason,
> > because it was expected to, it probably would. It is expectation
>itself,
> > and the being what is expected.
>
>R
>Well, as usual, this is where we're going to part ways. To me, it seems
>incoherent to say that the undivided whole was "expected" to do anything
>(who or what would have held such an expectation?). It think it does it
>for
>the fun of it... because it's better than not doing it.
I don't disagree. Wouldn't you expect something to do womething that was
better and more fun? It is a simultaneous meaning: morality does what is
expected because it is better to do what is expected and that's why it is
expected that it will do it. The undivided whole is Morality, correct? I
translate that to expectation itself. THe good, the fun and the
satisfaction that comes from realizing expectation is why expectation comes
true. Without the fun, there'd be no expectation. WIthout the expectation,
there'd be no fun.
>R
>Well naturally, you would have to think that Quality is to some extent
>differentiated because if it wasn't then there couldn't be anything that
>could have an expectation of something else. But just as naturally, I
>disagree. In my mind, it must all start with an undivided whole.
It did, back in the beginning. But it's been differentiated now. There's a
Europe that endures, and oceans, and crustaceans, and me and you. Yet there
are still quality events that create all this stuff afresh each time.
>J
> That's why I think morality is a much better word to use
> > than quality, because people think of morality as containing enduring
> > morals, but quality just seems like a shining sun of pure light.
>
>R
>Disagree. Only static quality has "enduring morals". In fact, "enduring
>morals" sounds like it could be the definition of static quality. Just
>another shot fired in your war to subsume the Dynamic to the static I
>suppose.
Yes, it is.
>J
> The
> > patterns of morality exist as patterns before the event makes them real.
>
>R
>How can something exist before it's "made real"?
The patterns dictate what is made real, they are what carry forward. WHen I
say "they exist as patterns", I mean the whole knows how to differentiate
itself into differentiated, real things, and it differentiates itself the
expected way. THe patterns exist within that whole, and they exist as
patterns, ready to be made real if anyone were to look. WHen we say that
the quality event creates the subject and object, we expect that subject
will be the same subject that was there one moment ago. To get from one
moment to the next, the PATTERN continues to exist within morality. The
subject and object are created with each moment.
>take care
>rick
take care
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
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 Jul 21 2003 - 08:24:22 BST