Hi Marco, (Magnus, Platt, Roger, Bodvar, David B., Maggie) and all,
Marco, since your 19th January post (Re: MD Quality and information theory)
I feel like I've been walking round with rocks in my head. It's not that I
couldn't think what to reply - I had too many things to say, but I feared
that my answer would come out sounding trivial. I see little utility in
pursuing my ongoing argument with Magnus on Quantum Theory, which was
largely exhuasted anyway (tho' not resolved - sorry Magnus).
After a good deal of consideration, I think it is now time to question the
utility of the "self awareness" concept. Thus, this post is really the start
of a new thread, and is renamed accordingly.
First Marco, I want to thank you for taking the trouble to review my (1998
"3+1" message).
(My proposal was to regard Intellect not as a level like the other 3, but as
a process of abstraction).
I claimed that all Pirsig's examples of Intellectual Patterns may perhaps
better be considered patterns in the other 3 levels. The recent thread
started by Platt (about the proposed memorial to the firemen who died in the
WTC collapse) convinces me that even a concept like TRUTH is primarily
social.
MARCO
«Well, I completely agree that intelligence and thinking (and emotions, I
add) fall nicely into the biological realm... and so on, but I don't think
that in your 3+1 scheme (where intellect is purely "abstraction") nothing is
left out. I think that self-awareness can't fall in any of the 3 lower
levels, and that at the contrary it is the very source of intellectual
patterns.»
Marco, not too long ago, we seemed to agree with each other that atoms could
be considered aware ("atomic awareness" thread April 2001), while Platt and
Roger were clearly unhappy with the idea. At some stage back then, I was
extremely irked when someone started talking about SELF awareness, which I
considered had no place in a discussion about atoms. I now feel the same
discomfort as you bring up the concept again, claiming it to be the "very so
urce of intellectual patterns".
I think we have to scrutinise this concept, starting by splitting the
"aware" for the "self". I think the aware part was already delay with fairly
comprehensively last April (see above), but I think we need to look more at
the concept of self.
Self only has meaning when paired with its counterpart, non-self. It is not
immediately clear to me where one ends and the other begins. I myself have 4
limbs, but I don't think my "selfness" would be eroded if I lost one or two
of them. Some would even argue that the self (as a soul) can survive death
of the body. Self is not material/physical. Moreover, it now seems to me
that the self/non-self dichotomy is at the heart of the infamous
subject-object split . . . . . . and also the Cartesian mind-matter
duality - surely "Cognito Ergo Sum" is the very essence of
self-awareness!!!!!
Thus Marco, if you want to have an intellectual level with self awareness as
its source, I think you have to go with Bodvar's SOLAQI idea (that the
Subject-Object division is the mother of all intellectual patterns).
On the other hand, this focus on the self (the individual) in the
intellectual level has its own dissenters. It's nice to have David B. back
with us posting on this point, and another pleasant surprise to have Maggie
resurfing to pick up on it.
DAVID B.
«The social level is about society, right? Its about the "giant", the
collective, right? And this is contrasted with the intellectual level, which
is about the individual, right?
No. Its not right. This is one of the main misconceptions about the 3rd
level. Collectivity and individuality both exist in both levels. The
scientific method, for example, absolutely requires many sets of eyeballs
and peer review....»
MAGGIE
«I think it's the second most important
application of MoQ, after the idea of DQ itself.»
Note that unlike me David B. still remains faithful to the concept of an
intellectual level, but this no longer focuses on the individual/self.
Instead, David tends to a mystical slant (is that a fair assessment David?).
I don't want to reopen the mystical vs. non mystical can of worms, but do
have an observation about certain "mystical" philosophies, particularly
those of the orient. While Marco focuses on self awareness, Hindu and
Buddhist mystics aim at a state of SELFLESS awareness (Nirvana, Zen).
Thus Marco, I am intrigued where you would put a concept like selfless
awareness in your scheme of things.
Best wishes to all,
Jonathan
PS to Marco - I'm not sure if and when I'll get round to comment on your way
of classifying the levels, but I think we first need to get this self
awareness issue out of the way.
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 - 16:01:48 BST