From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Jun 26 2004 - 06:14:01 BST
Dear Gavin,
I wrote 18 Jun 2004 07:55:19 +0200:
'Does a sattvic lifestyle make one choose a sattvic diet or does a sattvic
diet "cause" a sattvic lifestyle??'
You replied 19 Jun 2004 17:18:10 +1000:
'both. they prefer each other.'
What is the explanatory value of two patterns prefering each other?
You continued:
'[a sattvic lifestyle] usually starts as intellectual, then would become
more social, ie habitual.'
and
'the food is biological, in itself. the dietary plan is
social/intellectual.'
As long as it is a 'plan', I wouldn't call a dietary PLAN habitual. So could
we say that the symbolic patterns of sattvic lifestyle and sattvic diet are
(always? usualy?) part of one larger symbolic pattern and that this larger
pattern sometimes influences behaviour to the point that it (both lifestyle
and diet) become habitual? Then the essential (explaining) distinction is
not that between lifestyle and diet any more, but between symbolic and
habitual patterns.
Isn't it more likely that sattvic collective habits (in certain cultures)
prefer (i.e. tend to be rationalized in) sattvic symbolic patterns than the
other way round?
You wrote 19 Jun 2004 17:42:11 +1000:
'consciousness arose from the sophiscation of language.
consciousness is an abstract analogue of the real world.
consciousness is where intellect operates.'
I prefer to use "consciousness" also in a sense which makes is possible to
say the first: "consciousness" as "flashlight in the dark". At other times
it is necessary to use it in a sense that distinguishes it from "sleep" or
"lack of attention" or even "lack of symbolic sophistication". Maybe
"sophistication of" could be substituted by "symbolic"?
I would say "reflection" rather than "abstract analogue" and "some part of
reality" (can be even itself!) rather than "the real world".
I don't think it is useful to introduce "intellect": another term with
different meanings. Distinguishing "thought", "emotion", "intuition" and
"perception" all operate in the "flashlight", but "emotion" and "intutition"
less so (only with the "outcomes" of a supposed process) than "thought" and
"perception".
You continued:
'doesn't being conscious about hunger bring it into the realm of ideas? ...
once status-seeking has been
brought into consciousness, the intellect can help realise these social
goals'
"Consciousness as flashlight" creates a symbolic reflection of biological
hunger. Biological hunger still exists, too.
Goals are symbolic. Once something has become a goal, this symbolic pattern
can reinforce either exceptions from or sticking to habitual patterns of
value, depending on the match between symbolic and habitual patterns, yes.
If (a particular form of) status-seeking becomes a goal, the habitual
pattern of status-seeking reflected in the goal still exists.
You ended:
'is intellect where everything is signified? seems like intellect represents
every other level, simulating them. (is this the source of alienation?-
mistaking the representation for reality?)'
The 4th level consists of symbolic patterns standing for other patterns of
experience (that can include itself), yes. Both the representation and the
represented are part of "reality" according to a MoQ. Otherwise you would
get a SOM-in-disguise: subjective representation of objective reality.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Jun 26 2004 - 09:46:04 BST