Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:20:07 +0100
> well...if we're biological beings, but we're aware of static social
> patterns...that contradicts your statement that "no static level is aware
> of the level above".
I apologize for the delay Anders, this seems to have slipped me by.
This is the very question that got me started in the first place.
My solution is to make us as indivuals ultimately ruled by intellectual
patterns of value. This also meant that I had to make us have social
patterns of value. I think I have some support for this in Lila, Pirsig
mentiones that cells at some point got together and built societies
of cells, i.e. social patterns of value. And why would 2..5..10..100
cells be a society and we're not?
Note that the intellectual patterns of value are *not* what we
usually call "intellect". Maybe I have been unclear and made you
think that i think so, or maybe I used to think so myself? Anyway,
I assume that Dynamic Quality, your "The big NOW", has something to
do with the difference.
Magnus
P.S. Doug, you lurker! Nice to hear from you.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST