Re: MD The Individual Level

From: Matthew Poot (
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 21:50:32 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: Re: MD The Individual Level"

    Hello Joe,

    I think you're onto something ;-)


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Joe <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:10 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The Individual Level

    > On 14 April 2004 6:10 AM Mark writes in essay to Sam:
    > Mark:
    > So, when Sam glibly trots out, "it is the wise person that is most free
    > in touch with Quality, not the intellectual" what is he saying?
    > Well, even by Aristotle's lights, both his wise men, the man of affairs
    > the philosopher use intellect to do what they do. But here we have to
    > in Aristotle's notion of potential and actuality. Both men actuate their
    > potential intellects, but the man of affairs integrates his to living a
    > man of affairs life, to the neglect of specialisation, (jack of all
    > master of none)! while the philosopher fully actuates his intellect! Which
    > one is better? That is a debate that is going on and on. But the thing
    > the MoQ and my, The edge of chaos would agree with Sam and suggest that
    > Coherence is best. The problem is, Sam says the essence of autonomy is the
    > individual, whereas i would say it is Coherence of patterns in and across
    > levels. It is the intellectual patterns in tension with all other patterns
    > which generates Dynamic coherence which is then attributed to the
    > individual, and NOT the individual as a 'level' of the MoQ. The
    > is subtle, but absolutely important: Sam does not understand that what he
    > saying is not a minor change to the MoQ, his changes are founded on a
    > complete misunderstanding of what the MoQ is saying.
    > Hi Mark, Sam, and all:
    > joe: i am excited about your description of an individual. I reread TEOC.
    > I mused that maybe everything is a vibration. Sound is known in note
    > relations (the octave). I wonder if note relations apply in other
    > If there are other mediums? Is harmony a way to see coherence?
    > I quote from you, Mark, I hope it is alright:
    > "Complexity theory is one of the most controversial areas of current
    > scientific research. Developing out of chaos theory, complexity suggests
    > that there are hidden tendencies in nature to select ordered states, even
    > when statistically they are vastly outnumbered by chaotic possibilities:
    > that there is a deep natural impulse towards order, counteracting the
    > degenerative tendencies of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Like chaos,
    > complexity is a multidisciplinary area of research and those involved
    > include physicists, economists and biologists. This is a study of
    > complexity.
    > Sweet spots may indicate that Quality is not merely a human invention.
    > spots are to be found everywhere and provide supporting evidence for the
    > cosmological evolution postulated in the MOQ. Examples of sweet spots in
    > nature may be readily seen in the phenomena of phase transitions. These
    > appear to be sweet spots where the freedom of possibility merges with the
    > security of the actual:
    > The deep natural impulse towards order' that complexity indicates may be
    > better restated as a balance between SQ patterns. The impulse is DQ and
    > order is SQ." The Edge of Chaos by Mark Maxwell p 5.
    > joe: IMO there is something about self-awareness that is elusive. Can I
    > conclude that each level has tendencies which would look like awareness to
    > another level? Is self awareness, the awareness of one level experiencing
    > the changes in another level?
    > An individual sentient is four levels. I have a layered self-awareness.
    > experience the awareness of action, if I am not asleep. Morality in a
    > sentient individual seems to require an awareness in each level. An
    > awareness united across different levels seems to be able to be
    > indiscriminate. Something blocks discrete awareness in immoral actions.
    > Patterns between different levels can find an immoral coherence. Perhaps
    > am getting lost trying to picture it. Get the coherence right between dq
    > sq, before picturing coherence between sq sq on different levels.
    > Mark:
    > "patterns in tension with other patterns which generates Dynamic coherence
    > which is then attributed to an individual, and NOT the individual as a
    > 'level' of the MOQ"
    > joe: IMO the awareness of an individual can be more or less. When I
    > experience 'beauty' something changes my awareness. My awareness of the
    > cohesion is striking. When I create 'beauty' it seems something has
    > in me which expands beyond me. I accept something mechanically as a
    > of an audience at a concert. I sing my own song and the coherence of
    > patterns finds a different place in me. Is there a difference between
    > accepted and created awareness. Is the accepted awareness of
    > Jack-of-all-trades, the same as the created awareness of the philosopher?
    > IMO the philosopher is more moral than the jack-of-all-trades.
    > Why do I experience patterns in coherence as having a life of its own? Is
    > this a mystical experience? I anthropomorphize DQ and the levels are not
    > useful. DQ is not God. I can't anthropomorphize 'evolution'. IMO The
    > evolving sentient is one that is more in touch with the awareness of the
    > different levels?
    > Joe
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    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 : Sun Apr 18 2004 - 22:01:43 BST