From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Feb 26 2005 - 07:42:04 GMT
Dear Sam & others participating,
Sam formulated his primary concern 14 Feb 2005 09:58:26 -0000:
'the pre-intellectual understanding would seem to be equated with biological
quality. If so, then there is no independent access of the intellectual
level to DQ.'
and concluded
'if we are to stick with the definition of "feeling" as biological Quality,
we must be careful to use some other term when describing our primary
discernments of value'.
In betweeen he suggested "emotion":
'We need to distinguish "emotion" from "feeling", simply because, ... there
are many ways in which we understand emotion which cannot be equated with
biological quality.',
'What is interesting, however, is that there are undoubted biological
manifestations of these emotions',
'This suggests to me that if we are to take on board an equation of
"feeling" with biological Quality, then we need to use "emotion" as a
broader term, transferable across the upper three levels.' and
'what is primary is the emotion (an effect produced by the interaction
between different patterns of each level) with the biological quality
following on afterwards.'
I don't see the problem:
Intellectual patterns of value don't need "access" to DQ, because they
already embody static intellectual quality, which is (an embodiment from the
point of view of other levels and a measure of) DQ. Neither do patterns of
value of the other levels. Taken together all static quality can be
(contradictory) identified with DQ...
I don't like the suggestion that "emotion" rather than "feeling" should be
understood as a broader term for "primary discernment of value", at least at
the upper three levels. "Experience" (without "sensual" or "sentient") and
"quality" are perfect broader terms. The idea that something should be
primary to something else in the MoQ is for me a wrong extrapolation from
Pirsig's argumentation in "Zen ...", 'Quality first, objects and subjects
derived' (yes, also by himself). The MoQ as elaborated in "Lila" doesn't
need DQ to be primary to sq or (some parts of) sq to be primary to DQ. DQ
and sq are a contradictory identity.
The wrong turn in your argumentation above is where you talk about
"biological manifestions of these emotions [at higher levels]". These
manifestations are not "biological" in the MoQish sense of the word, as then
don't affect the biological patterns of value, the patterns of value
configured by DNA.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 26 2005 - 13:59:46 GMT