Horse:
But according to the MoQ a physical actual object belongs to the Inorganic
level.
It is inorganic PoV's that are physical. Biological PoV's are not physical.
Consider
it this way - what is the difference between a live body and a dead body?
The
body is still the same, you can touch it, dissect it etc. but where is the
life and
the attributes of life - point to them.
Glove:
life is impossible to define, i agree. if we get right down to it though, so
is the inorganic. yet there is an undeniable physicality to life that there
is not to the social or intellect patterns of value. i see no problem
classifying instinct as life, and life contains the ability to perceive all
four levels of the metaphysics of quality. and so in a round-about way i do
agree with you here.
Horse:
A live body is the combination of (at least)
Inorganic and Biological PoV's. Remove the BPoV's and you have a bunch of
components which used to be alive - Pirsig's chemistry professor. There may
be
areas in the brain that are more active than others when instictive
behaviour (as
opposed to learned behaviour) occurs, but that behaviour is triggered and
processed by a whole host of other processes. The same activity, responses
etc.
will not occur in a dead body or brain so saying that a physical part of the
brain is
the only thing responsible is inaccurate - other factors are necessary.
Glove:
this is a misunderstanding of what i meant. i didnt mean to say that the
brain was the only thing necessary and in fact my arguement was that this
was not a valid agreement to make. my original point was that instinct
belonged not to the biological brain but to a subjective intellect perceived
outside of time. so somehow along the way part of that meaning has been
lost.
Horse:
In a
particular context though you are correct, in that by considering the brain
and/or
body as a community (society) of inorganic and biological patterns of value
instincts are also a creation of social value. But instincts do not belong
exclusively in the social level. This is part of the problem of reductionism
that I
mentioned in my reply to Mary. I believe that the MoQ must support and
recognize complexity as fundamental to its own existence.
Glove:
instincts are only perceived at the social level as a "doing". true
instincts are a de-patternization of what we think we know in order to
realize what it is that we "do" know. its hard to put into words but i am
really trying. i am not attempting to reduce anything in the manner you seem
to suggest. rather i am atttempting to say what underlying preferences are
driving the static level patterns of value we perceive as reality.
i would like to think that the complexity is only something we are making of
it. but that is probably my subjective side talking.
best wishes,
glove
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:44 BST