Bo,
I agree...
Whenever I look-out into the nightsky, at the infinity of the known
universe, much less the unknown, I get the sense how little we humans
know... yet how arogant we can be... A fifth level may be out there, but we
may be too narrow for us to "see"
Barritt
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 8:09 AM
Subject: MD 5th level revisited
> Rob, Squonk, Barritt and All
>
> For ROB
> I started on a message analyzing yours solely, but it'll have to cut
> down to make room for other, so what I don't comment I agree on.
> You wrote:
> > A sense (sound, sight, touch, taste and smell) is a biological
> > experience. A feeling (emotion) is [predominantly] a social
> experience
> > A thought is an intellectual experience A ______ is a fifth level
> > experience
>
> The only comment to the above paragraph is the use of the term
> "thought", but like "mind" it is so ubiquitous that it is hard to carry
> on an intelligent discussion without giving the impression that Q-
> intellect is the level of mental activity. But it's between Life and
> Society that an element of abstraction is introduced ...though not
> in the (SOM) sense of living matter becoming aware ...or imbued
> with mind. I can't go into all that again however.
>
> Then you reach this part:
> > So, in looking for a fifth level: what are high quality experiences
> > that are of no merit intellectually, socially or biologically
> > speaking? Religion maybe (not the organized kind, that's social),
> > maybe Drugs (peyote rather than crack), maybe meditation,
> maybe even
> > talking about the idea of quality itself. Who knows.
>
> The point is that a 5th Q level presupposes a 4th Q-level ..this
> means that MoQ's intellect isn't SOM's intellect (mind)!. A mind-
> intellect means that a movement beyond must be something super-
> mindish. You Rob aren't onto that blind alley HERE, but lower
> down and in your reply to Squonk you seem to wander in that
> direction. Your last suggestion above..."even talking about the idea
> of quality" however is the way :-) ....it touches my own notion that
> the Quality idea is its own 5th level.
>
> > fifth level is a lot closer to awakening than everybody thinks.
> > Definitely within my lifetime. I even believe that it already may
> have
> > dominated for short amounts of time in previous cultures.
>
> I'm not foreign to this idea myself Rob, but only within Pirsig's
> framework can it be called a 5th level. Before Pirsig "beyond
> intellect" was equal to dope, transces, religious ecstasy, but these
> are stale because it leads to self-destruction or yoga-like
> exersises of staring into the sun.
>
> > Traditionally there could never be a discussion like this however,
> > first of all, there was no framework to incorporate a fifth level
> > experience intellectually speaking.
>
> Spot on!!
>
> Also, perhaps those that could
> > experience the fifth level were few and far between, destined to
> know ....snip
> .......
> > There will be flavors. Another warning, don't abandon the other
> levels
> > in seeking the fifth level, if it isn't a smart thing to do, don't do
> > it. Only those with a thorough knowledge of MOQ and confidence
> in
> > their intellectual static level should venture into the unknown. For
> > when you return, you may never think the same.
>
> In the above meanderings you touch upon many of the possibilities
> that I have "warned" against ;-) but you reach the conclusion that
> it's only by the Quality framework that such an advancement can
> be made. Not least of all you heed the warning that the lower
> levels must not be forgotten. SOM (as Q-intellect IMO) has had
> this blind spot built into it is disconnected from the rest of
> existence.
>
> All in all a great post Rob!
>
> For SQUONK
> who wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> > Yup, i would not wish to in any sense define Quality, (DQ).
> > I also feel, and have said before, that the fifth level can in no way
> > be captured or conceptualised in any meaningful sense fourth
> level
> > down. Analogies are perhaps the only way to feel or think about
> it.
>
> > I know many, including Bo, do not like this approach?
> > It seems Bo feels the MOQ itself is a step towards fifth level?
>
> Thanks for noticing my resistance re. mystification which I think is
> a blind alley. It sounds megalomaniac to speak against ACC and I
> don't do it from an intellectual pov, only from what I understand of
> the Quality Metaphysics.
>
> > It's all beyond me, so i have no argument with Bo except to
> suggest
> > that the MOQ is, in my view, the best fourth level description of
> > reality we have.
>
> This sounds as if I am the worst mystificator, but it simply means
> that a metaphysics is a world unto itself: A shell in an ever
> growing onion.
>
> Speaking about Arthur C Clarke, I just read that Stephen
> Hawkings warned against computers taking control ..etc. It shows
> that great minds steeped in SOM speak nonsense. ACC's forecast
> about HAL hasn't materialized and never will and the
> supercomputation candidate for a 5th level is sterile. According to
> the MoQ the Q- intellect is out of Q-society (IMO: reason out of
> emotion) and not "matter wired up ingeniously starting to think".
> "Hey, I am a computer now I'll take over".
>
> For BARRITT
> who wrote:
> > Although I've been a member of the discussion group for a short
> period
> > of time, so far the opinions about a fifth level appear to be more
> > like extensions of the fourth level, the intellectual level. Let's
> > face it, we are using the fourth level to posit a fifith level, and
> > this seems like the dog chasing it's tail. One observation is how
> > different one level is from another, not in degree, but in "type" -
> > bad word I know, but all I have to offer. What I mean be this is
> that
> > each is a different type, or perhaps to use a word that Robert
> uses, a
> > different fabric for quality. To use an analogy, if level 'x' is a
> > sport, such as baseball, then the next level, 'y' is not just another
> > sport, like say 'basketball' or 'football' but is more like taking
> > 'sport' and turning them into a 'business'... Sorry, I.m not very
> good
> > with analogies.
>
> Welcome Barritt
> I like your take on the 5th level which I find compatible with my
> own. However it must necessarily be out of intellect - where else -
> that is beyond doubt. "A pattern of the parent level starting off on a
> purpose of it's own" ...are Pirsig's words. However it will be
> something like your analogy: another perspective where the
> previous patterns are "exploited" for another purpose ....great
> insight! That's why the animosity from the lower level that don't see -
> can't see - any higher value than itself.
> Bo
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:30 BST