From: Steve Peterson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 23:12:07 BST
>> Bo said:
>>> ... your statement that
>>> intellectual patterns should be present in the social age is
>>> completely at odds with the MOQ. Also that of "...social patterns
>>> still present in modern times" is wrong if "modern times" means the
>>> intellectual level?
>> I don't see how modern times could equal the intellectual level. The
>> intellectual level is a type of pattern of value, not an epoch.
> One moment you like the "age" or "epoch" term, the next you don't.
> There must necessarily have been an era/age/epoch when all value
> levels were the top notch and through whose filter existence was
> seen. The present time is is the intellectual age in the Western sphere
> ....in my opinion.
I commented that I liked the "social age" idea because it makes what I think
is an important distinction between the social age and the social level.
Now I find that you don't make such a distinction and use the terms
interchangeably. That I don't like.
>> I'm not sure you're understanding my position nor DMB's. You seem to
>> have it backward. What DMB calls social, I would often call
>> intellectual since DMB limits intellect to thinking about thinking
>> while I define intellect as Pirsig does -- simply thinking. It is DMB
>> that has thinking as part of the social level.
> When you read this, my "solution" post is hopefully published and you
> will see how I see (that Pirsig saw) the social-intellect transition.
>> Wim's formulation
>> keeps the levels discrete as the value that holds a rationale for
>> behavior together is recognized completely differently than the value
>> present when a person unconsciously copies the behavior of another.
> The "social repetitious" idea may be viable in that light.
>> I wonder why you think there is no room for the social level if one
>> thinks of social patterns as those latched through unconscious copying
>> of behavior. Can you explain what you think is left out?
> I have no objection to SOCIAL patterns at the social level, it's when
> you and/or Wim start to speak of intellectual patterns stretching back
> to God knows when that I say that it leaves no room for the social era.
If you are saying that there was a time when there were social patterns but
not intellectual patterns, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Others have
recently (last summer) said otherwise.
>> Also, what is this "social reality"? I don't see the levels as
>> referring to different realities. Is that really what you mean?
> As said, social "reality" is the era when social value was top notch. It is
> still present - as strong as ever - only not dominating our outlook. Your
> not seeing levels as different realities ... hmm. That I think you will
> have difficulties with defending, but let me hear your reasoning.
I couldn't possibly defend why I don't see the levels as multiple realities
when I can't even imagine what that would mean. I was asking you to
explain. I can understand "social "reality" is the era when social value
was top notch" but then am confused by "It is still present - as strong as
ever - only not dominating our outlook." These seem to contradict one
another. Are you saying that some people (perhaps even most) are still
dominated by social patterns and that in effect they live in a different
world? That would make sense to me.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
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 - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 23:08:52 BST