Re: MD awareness hierarchy?

From: Steve Peterson (
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 21:18:35 BST

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "MD The Quality Event"

    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.

    That sounds like a correct summary of what I was saying.

    > I run into problems with your last paragraph (as quoted above) though: At
    > what level does this 'intellectually aware person' of yours follow laws?

    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.

    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)


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 26 2003 - 15:41:48 BST