Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 3 Sep 1998 16:16:33 +0100
Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:12:38 -0400
Maggie Hettinger wrote.
> Ken and all,
Maggie.
I must inform you and the Squad that Ken Clark is in hospital
with a heart attack. He is doing fine and is in high spirits - his
wife said - but he will naturally be absent from the discussion for a
while. Yet , he reads the LS exchange so I will use this
opportunity to send him my best wishes.
I agree with the rest of your analysis and will only highlight this
portion of your message:
> Now, here's the other insight that MoQ has that NOBODY else does. We've
> talked about another higher layer, and I think there's a good case for it, just
> within the last half-century. If it's not there, then there's a DQ balance
> point that has been reached. I'm pretty sure it's one or the other, and I'm
> not sure there's a difference.
>
> <----new direction
> Intellectual---->
> <----Social
> Biological----->
> <-----inorganic
>
> There's a new direction happening, and it's being formalized. There are formal
> ways that groups, corporations and such "escape" intellectual pattens and move
> to some transcendent different drummer. The leadership and business
> literature is full of this.
> And the literature is also full of a lot of schlock. Organizations are trying
> this new stuff with enthusiasm, but many don't make it. They don't get better,
> they get worse. Many of the people who have experienced the new direction are
> attempting to pass on the experience, but when the transcendent part of the
> message (or action) gets lost somewhere, do you know what's left? Social
> stuff. Anti-intellectual social stuff. Social patterns that were
> re-emphasized to bring about the transcendent balance BECOME the new direction
> and a dangerous degeneration occurs. It's happening a lot. And nobody has a
> worldview that can give them a clue to what's going on.
> Except us.
> Of course, there are a few details to work out. <grin>
I am probably one of those who speak of a development
beyond intellect. It looks a bit preposterous after regarding the
immense time perspective of the older levels: billions of years for
the inorganic, hundred of millions for life; hundred of thousands
for the social and thousands for intellect, but it looks as if there
is an universal constant at work: a red-shift of time, so I think
nothing forbids such a view.
What is harder to grasp is what a static moral level above intellect
will "look like". (perhaps Glove will have a look at his wimple
model and see what it predicts?) You wrote:
> Now, here's the other insight that MoQ has that NOBODY else does. We've
> talked about another higher layer, and I think there's a good case for it, just
> within the last half-century. If it's not there, then there's a DQ balance
> point that has been reached. I'm pretty sure it's one or the other, and I'm
> not sure there's a difference.
Right, its not yet a separate purpose of its own, but a "DQ
balance point has been reached". The Quality idea itself is this
balance point, and if the past is a guidance the new Q-level will for
a long time look like a servant for intellect, but gradually take on
a life of its own and become a growing embarrassment for
Intellect.
But here's a most important point. Magnus (in his reply to Horse)
spaks of Intellect being unable to perceive a level above itself,
and that's correct for Intellect as such, but a human being is not
confined to Intellect if it perceives Quality! See, when we are
focussed on the Biological level - in utter distress f.example. - we
don't perceive the social values and when totally in the Social mode
we are oblivious to Intellect ( a Kamikaze pilot didn't
give a damn about his individual welfare, everything that
counted was the fate of the Empire). No, we will be able to perceive
values beyond intellect ----we already are.
But to see it this way it is mandatory to drop the old SOM notion of
Intellect as "thinking itself": Intellect is a static quality level:
a very special way of thinking - in subject-object terms - which can
(not easily, but still) be surpassed by another mode of thinking.
I am here at the end of my tether, but Maggie's analysis
inspired me so much.
Bodvar
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:45 CEST