From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 21:18:35 BST
Wim, Platt:
I (Steve) wrote:
> A person who is socially aware but not intellectually aware will have
> conscious motivations for his actions. He always motivate his actions
> based on the unconsciously copied rationales that he has accumulated. He
> will tend to behave intellectually immorally. He will motivate his actions
> with the rationales that are expected of him (within his particular context)
> unless he falls back on "irrational" copied behavior or the law of the
> jungle.
>
> The intellectually aware person may create new and better rationales by
> "thinking about thinking" and seem to be behaving immorally from the
> perspective of the person who is not intellectually aware. This person is
> still unaware of the possible static patterns he is following but are yet to
> be named.'
>
Wim said:
> If I formalize and reformulate a bit (I hope not beyond what you would agree
> with), it becomes:
> Every entity is aware of the forces operating at the level below the level
> whose laws it follows. An inorganic entity is unaware of inorganic forces,
> so follows inorganic laws. A biological entity is aware of inorganic forces
> (and tries to avoid regression to that level), but unaware of biological
> forces, so follows biological laws. A social entity (hominids, maybe some
> animals) is aware of inorganic and biological forces (and tries to avoid
> regression to these levels), but unaware of social forces, so follows social
> laws. An intellectual entity (a member of homo sapiens) is aware of
> inorganic, biological and social forces, but unaware of intellectual forces,
> so follows intellectual laws.
Steve:
That sounds like a correct summary of what I was saying.
Wim:
> I run into problems with your last paragraph (as quoted above) though: At
> what level does this 'intellectually aware person' of yours follow laws?
Steve:
Perhaps, this level is the level on which one searches for the "ghost of
reason" as Phaedrus did in ZAMM. Would this be a "trans-rational" level?
Perhaps there are no static patterns to follow on this level, yet.
Do you see the MOQ as "trans-rational"?
>
> Do we need this concept of 'awareness'? Couldn't we write instead that
> entities behave morally at the highest level in which they participate, i.e.
> at the level in the static pattterns of value of which they are elements?
No, I suppose we don't, and yes, we could. (see below)
Platt said:
> I'm not sure where this is leading. Does it explain behavior that
> otherwise can't be? Some examples from everyday life would help.
Steve:
You may be giving me too much credit to think I'd be leading somewhere. I
thought that I may have had an insight into Johnny's philosophy of
expectation but apparently I didn't, since he didn't comment.
I also was interested in what you might say about one who is aware of
intellectual patterns. I had the same question as Wim. On what level would
that person be on?
Thirdly, I was interested in awareness because I was trying to understand
the Quality Event. (See new thread)
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 26 2003 - 15:41:48 BST