From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 00:39:58 BST
Hi Bo,
Steve said:
>> I like the term "social age" for describing the time when social
>> patterns were dominant because it differentiates the uses of the term
>> "social level." You still seem to be confusing "social age" and
>> "social type of people" with "social pattern of value." Though social
>> patterns dominated in the social age, intellectual patterns were still
>> present, just as social patterns are still present in modern times.
>
Bo said:
> ... your statement that
> intellectual patterns should be present in the social age is completely
> at odds with the MOQ. Also that of "...social patterns still present in
> modern times" is wrong if "modern times" means the intellectual
> level?
Steve:
I don't see how modern times could equal the intellectual level. The
intellectual level is a type of pattern of value, not an epoch.
>The lower levels are the foundation of the upper, but not
> present in it (in their own capacity). However, the human being is the
> said forest of values.
I agree.
Steve said:
>> Your mention of "social repetitious..." seems to be a reference to
>> Wim's idea that I have supported of recognizing a type of pattern by
>> the way it is latched. I find Wim's formulation especially useful in
>> identifying social patterns as those that are latched through
>> unconscious copying of behavior.
>
Bo said:
> I shall not argue more here because I have tried to find a solution to
> the long-lasting intellectual level definition quandary, and in the
> process the social level will get a different flavor. Watch out for a
> "Solution" post. I will be interested in your opinion.
>
>> I don't see myself as an attacker of the social level and
>> I don't see DMB as the social level's defender. (To me the phrase "on
>> the social level" makes little sense because I think about the levels
>> as types of patterns of value. I translate it as "this person or
>> forest of static patterns is dominated by social values.")
>
> My "wooing" of DMB is because of his emphasizing the social reality.
> Understanding its crucial role is crucial for understanding the MOQ.
> Wim's notion of some quasi-intellectual patterns inside social reality is
> impossible, it leaves no room for the social LEVEL as undestood by
> the MOQ.
Steve:
I'm not sure you're understanding my position nor DMB's. You seem to have
it backward. What DMB calls social, I would often call intellectual since
DMB limits intellect to thinking about thinking while I define intellect as
Pirsig does -- simply thinking. It is DMB that has thinking as part of the
social level. Wim's formulation keeps the levels discrete as the value that
holds a rationale for behavior together is recognized completely differently
than the value present when a person unconsciously copies the behavior of
another.
I wonder why you think there is no room for the social level if one thinks
of social patterns as those latched through unconscious copying of behavior.
Can you explain what you think is left out?
Also, what is this "social reality"? I don't see the levels as referring to
different realities. Is that really what you mean?
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 00:36:10 BST