Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Sun, 6 Sep 1998 16:10:27 +0100
Horse and Squad!
One last summary from my side before we move on to new ground.
Your and Magnus' meta-discussion of computer virus as a level above
Intellect is too lofty, I think we have an actual candidate for a new
static moral latch above Intellect. You wrote:
> A lower level can certainly be aware of a higher level - it must be
> as there is conflict between levels and the manifestation of that
> conflict forces awareness. (The form of awareness I'm referring to
> is not intellectual awareness!!).
Let's imagine that the Quality "movement" is a budding new moral
level, still indistinguishable from Intellect - "in its service" so
to say, but we sense a conflict. Intellect rejects the new morality
once it shows its true intentions, and such a show is when old Bo
says that "mind" (of S-O Metaphysics) isn't the holy grail, but a
mere Q-stage. Then Intellect panics: "Me,"thinking itself"
(Jonathan), not the container of everything (Donny) .. what is this
nonsense?!" No, Intellect will newer recognize a level above itself,
but DQ is able to; we are not solely of Intellect (after reading
LILA).
> But each level (or combination of levels) is responsible for the
> creation of the next level. Higher 'static' levels emerge from lower
> 'static' levels through the action of dynamic quality.
Responsible? Yes, in the sense that it is the necessary base for a new
level, but all static levels resists any outgrowth. Intellect would
just hate to see its elevated position becoming second to a Q-level.
> A lower level is not composed of the patterns of value of the higher
> level so there is no direct experience of it. We do not partake of
> that level.
This passage I don't fully understand. Are you saying that we don't
partake of levels below Intellect? If so I protest. Or perhaps you
mean we won't partake of a level above Intellect whereupon I protest
even more.
For DENNIS:
Welcome to the discussion. As I was the one with moist eyes (after a
most insightful letter from Maggie Hettinger) let me add this. If one
sees emotions as the "carrier" of Social values it's no wonder that
Intellect looks down upon it as block to senses, filter of reality and
so on. The subject-object way of seeing emotions is as distortions of
objective reality, but the MOQ view is quite different: Each static
moral level IS a new dimension added to the Q-continuum, the Social is
the firmest latch below Intellect and Intellect just hates this unruly
primitive force "down under". The marvel of the MOQ is that it allows
this radical new approach to emotions.
For DONNY:
My last message was a bit harsh, but I do hope that you are
generous enough to see that my tone is because your entries engage me
so much.
For PLATT:
No comments are needed to your "Moist Eyes & Dead Ends" entry of 3
Sep. I savoured every word of it. Great!
For KEN:
Mighty glad to have you back again. I hope your engagement in
the discussion wasn't the reason for the illness. Be careful with the
nitroglycerin!
For DIANA:
I thought you had left us in the lurch, and am glad that you are there
to guide us along to new fields of the MOQ .....and to a new server
when time is ripe.
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 - 16:43:46 CEST