RE: MD The S/O divide

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 02:30:16 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD What comes first?"

    Scott and all MOQsters:

    From Scott:
    We are self-conscious. Because of that, the way we perceive by senses is not
    the way animals or plants perceive by senses. Not that I know how they do,
    but I think being self-conscious is going to change everything all the way
    down.

    dmb says:
    It might be interesting to explore HOW self-consciousness effects our
    creature senses. I might change everything all the way down, but I suspect
    it only modifies and mollifies in a marginal way. I mean, I feel hunger
    differently than my dog "cricket", but not so much that we can rightly call
    it anything other than hunger. It seems to me that feelings of hunger,
    thirst, lust, fatigue, etc are feelings we have in common with animals. I
    think we can "feel" the values levels within and sort them out, at least to
    some extent. If each of us is a forest of static patterns, then its not too
    hard to imagine that we feel the pull of various and conflicting values.
    Naturally, this is where the moral codes come in, but it seems to me that
    the first step is learning to discriminate between our biological, social
    and intellectual "impulses", if you will.

    From Scott:
    To extend what DMB has to say, though, is what, in my view, makes making
    this distinction important. It is to emphasize that the redemption of Adam's
    sin is not just reunion with God, but that we reunite without losing our
    individuality. Otherwise, what's the point?

    dmb says:
    I didn't get your DQ/sq=S/O thing. Didn't seem to add up. But we agree here.
    There's a world of difference between original participation and final
    participation. (Barfield's terms, I think.) Wilber takes the idea even
    further and depicts the whole evolutionary process as one of splitting away
    in order to grow and then returning to the whole. Differentiation and
    Re-integration are the terms he uses for it. Think of Pirisg's complaint
    about SOM in this light. Specifically, the idea that SOM intellect beieves
    it stands alone and was born without parents, is a product of biological
    man, an epiphenomenon of the brain and all that. As Wilber explains it, this
    is a case where differentiation has gone too far and intellect has been
    dis-associated with its ground of being. In this case, re-integration is
    more desperately needed and is more difficult. I think this only adds to
    Pirsig's descriptions of the current crisis.

    Thanks,
    dmb

    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 Sep 02 2003 - 02:33:41 BST