From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 08:05:47 BST
Steve primarily, DMB mentioned
20 Sep. DMB responded to Steve's of 15 Sep. where he had written:
(to DMB & me)
> 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.
Sorry Steve, this your message passed me by un-noticed. I see that
DMB has commented the "confusion" point, but 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? 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.
> 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.
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.
Bo had said to DMB:
> > "Unusual features", I dare say. Your definition of intellect as
> > "thinking about thinking" is correct from intellect's p.o.v, but seen
> > from the "Q- level" a radically different picture emerges.
> Bo, can you explain what you mean by this bit about points of view and
> the "Q-level"?
Humans as "a forest of values" evokes the image of a faculty switching
its attention between the various levels, and that this faculty is
intellect, but intellect is (just) another level. So this "thinking" - not to
speak of "thinking about thinking" is intellects pompous image of
itself.
The "Q-level" is the offset intellectual pattern (from where "thinking" is
done by those who accept the MOQ)
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 : Wed Sep 24 2003 - 08:07:01 BST