Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 1

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 08:39:28 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Dealing with S/O"

    Hi Steve
    25 Sep. you wrote:

    > 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.

    One moment you like the "age" or "epoch" term, the next you don't.
    There must necessarily have been an era/age/epoch when all value
    levels were the top notch and through whose filter existence was
    seen. The present time is is the intellectual age in the Western sphere
    ....in my opinion.

    > 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.

    When you read this, my "solution" post is hopefully published and you
    will see how I see (that Pirsig saw) the social-intellect transition.

    > 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.
     
    The "social repetitious" idea may be viable in that light.

    > 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?

    I have no objection to SOCIAL patterns at the social level, it's when
    you and/or Wim start to speak of intellectual patterns stretching back
    to God knows when that I say that it leaves no room for the social era.
      
    > Also, what is this "social reality"? I don't see the levels as
    > referring to different realities. Is that really what you mean?

    As said, social "reality" is the era when social value was top notch. It is
    still present - as strong as ever - only not dominating our outlook. Your
    not seeing levels as different realities ... hmm. That I think you will
    have difficulties with defending, but let me hear your reasoning.

    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 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 08:46:35 BST