From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2004 - 19:01:10 BST
>
Hi Platt,
See my response for DMB on the stuff you quoted from him.
> P:
>>> The
>>> intellectual level is dominated by individuals who value the
>>> patterns of
>>> their independent thoughts more than unthinking conformity to social
>>> patterns. That's another reason why I think a better name for the
>>> intellectual level would be the Individual Level.
>
> S:
>> The intellectual level is not dominated by individuals since
>> individuals are identified or defined by the patterns that they
>> participate in. (Lila doesn't have Quality. Quality has Lila.)
>
> Let's be clear that when I refer to individuals I'm talking about human
> beings, not parts of wholes. Both the social and intellectual levels,
> the
> subjective realms, consist of human beings, all of whom are made up of
> the
> four levels plus the capacity to respond to DQ.
I'm lost. You are saying that the social and intellectual levels
consists of human beings which consist of the social and intellectual
levels?
>
>> However, the intellectual level is built on the social level as every
>> level
>> is built upon the levels below, but to call the intellectual level the
>> individual level since it is built on individual human beings would
>> be like
>> calling the social level the animal level since it is built upon
>> animals
>> (homo sapiens) and calling the biological level the molecular level
>> since
>> it built on molecules.
>
> The reason to call it the individual level is as I've described--a
> level
> dominated by individuals who value the patterns of their independent
> thoughts more than unthinking conformity to social patterns.
Did you not follow my objection above or did you just not want to
respond to it? There's never any obligation to answer, of course.
>
>>> Patterns are 'structures of perception?' Interesting. Please
>>> elaborate.
>
>> That is the most appropriate dictionary definition I could find. I
>> imagine Pirsig would be even more irritated in being asked what a
>> pattern is than he was about being asked what intellect is.
>
>> n 1: a perceptual structure; "the composition presents problems for
>> students of musical form"; "a visual pattern must include not only
>> objects but the spaces between them" [syn: form, shape] > The first
>> one
>> "perceptual structure" seems to fit best. What do you
>> think?
>
> Not a particularly helpful definition.
I know. I think the issue is well worth discussing.
> I guess that patterns as
> 'perceptual structures' might have something to do with those cultural
> glasses we all have by which we make sense of the data of experience.
I agree, but I think they also have to do with our biological make-up.
I think ZAMM's Quality as pre-intellectual awareness translates into
the MOQ's static-dynamic split of Quality as unpatterned awareness
which then becomes manifest as (DQ or) four different types of
perceptual structures, not just intellectual awareness. For example,
getting your ass off a hot stove is pre-intellectual, but not
pre-biological.
> The
> question is do the patterns exist independently of perception?
No. I think the word pattern presupposes perception. That it why I
looked it up. I was concerned about that, but this is not SOM
perception since it is this patterning (and DQing) that itself is
awareness which creates subjects and objects as patterns.
>
>> I mean I usually think without thinking of
>> myself thinking. I don't see any great mystery in "disembodied
>> intellect"
>> by calling intellectual patterns patterns of thought.
>
> I think it's a fundamental error to disconnect humans from thoughts,
> just
> as it's wrong to disconnect humans from the social and intellectual
> levels. It's abstract thinking without regard for human individuals
> that
> accounts for the slaughter of millions by totalitarian governments.
You are arguing that what I say is false because of what you think are
the social consequences of what I'm saying. Also, I still don't
understand why you think I am disconnecting humans from thoughts. I'm
just saying that humans aren't thoughts and thoughts aren't humans.
Isn't that right, or are we arguing the issue of whether humans have
thoughts or thoughts have humans?
>>> Having high regard for individuals is an intellectual
>>> pattern--freedom of
>>> speech, of religion, trial by jury, one man one vote, etc.
>
>> That's not what I mean. I'm saying that a statement is true or false
>> regardless of who is saying it.
>
> And I'm saying that a statement is neither true or false unless
> somebody
> says it.
>
...or at least thinks it. No one has ever said anything to the
contrary.
Regards,
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 : Mon Apr 26 2004 - 19:06:41 BST