From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Apr 27 2004 - 21:29:00 BST
Hi Steve Peterson,
> > 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?
Right. Without human beings there would be no 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.
I thought I had responded by making it clear the social level consists of
human beings, not animals as you claim. Animals belong exclusively to the
biological level. If as a human being you act like an animal, you should be
treated as such. That's what social level police and soldiers do.
> > 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.
Would you say unpatterned awareness is an attribute of inorganic as well
as biological patterns? Do you think biological patterns behave according
to instinctive perceptual structures? (This is all interesting stuff to
me. Maybe we should make it a separate thread.)
> > 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.
Looks like we're in a conundrum. Patterns create perceptions which create
patterns. If we pursue this, we should pin down what we mean by
perception, awareness, perceptual structures, patterns, etc.
> > 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?
I think we're arguing in circles, each trying to convince the other but
getting nowhere fast. I assume we're both right from different
perspectives. Time to quit?
Best regards,
Platt
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 Apr 27 2004 - 21:48:50 BST