Scott and Gary.
I wrote a lengthy letter to Gary, but this by Scott anticipated most of my
objections so I dropped it.
On 27 Jul 2002 at 8:53, Scott R wrote:
(to Gary) so many good things I just highlight these.
> We seldom experience light
> or sound. We mostly experience trees, walls, pictures, birds singing,
> etc.
> Second, you seem to be saying because an experience is individual,
> then it belongs in the 4th category. By this logic, since all
> experiences are individual (the only exception I can think of would be
> telepathy), then everything belongs to the fourth level.
> This would be
> solipsism, I guess. It's certainly not the MOQ.
A loud "yes" to all above, may I make a small "but" to the one below,
however.
> Again, I think you are
> making a mistake by thinking that feelings and thoughts can be
> considered as static patterns all by themselves, ignoring that
> feelings and thoughts (and sensations) are always feelings of X and
> thoughts of Y.
"Feeling" is a terrible imprecise term and occurs in all Indo-European
languages it seems. Sensation and emotion should be held separate. As I
see it the former is the biological "expression" while the latter is the social
one. ('Interaction' and 'reason' the inorganic and intellectual)
> In sum, your mistake is to ask "in what category are the different
> types of mental events". Instead, I think one should classify by what
> prompts the events. So a feeling is, for example, a feeling of anger
> at someone, and so that one is social
Exactly!
> A feeling of hunger is biological.
Right!
> A feeling of satisfaction at
> solving a mathematical puzzle is intellectual.
Hmmm ....A feeling of satisfaction is an emotion and as such social. We
must not get too lofty regarding the q-intellect and forget it's social origin, a
stone ager (a social focussed existence) would be as satisfied by thinking
out a new designs for a pitfall as Archimedes "eureka" experience. No,
intellectual VALUE is not "symbolic logic" or algebra or anything, but the
value of dividing what is objective from subjective. Something you point out
below.
> Now the above is why I think you are misapplying the MOQ, but in fact,
> that isn't really my main concern. My concern is to emphasize the
> value of SOT, and it is immaterial to me whether SOT "really is" the
> 4th level. I think it is, for the reason given in the previous
> paragraph. The value of SOT is its *attempt* at so-called objectivity,
> at *trying* to be unbiased, at fostering detachment. It is of higher
> quality than monkey-mind thinking, and so it is important that we make
> that distinction. If this distinction is not made, then to me the MOQ
> would be worthless.
Agreement unto hysteria.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST