Bo, 3WD and MF,
BO,
this will be a short one, so no historical descriptions for the moment....
I must thank you again for your words. You pay a great attention to my posts
and this is a great satisfaction for me.
I want to anticipate your announced answer to my post scriptum, hoping this
clarification could be of help.
You wrote:
<<Your inquiry into the foundations of each static value level is most
important and a grat insight. You will possibly remember my own
search for what I called the "expression" of each value level and
that I arrived at 'sensation' regarding Q-biology. My objection to
'instincts' (aside from not rhyming) is that it is so SOMish, calling
to mind an automaton driven by a program. None of the above
biological urges (hunger, thirst...etc) isn't just as well described as
sensation. But your idea is so good that I won't insist of course.>>
No, please, insist! :-)
Well, there's not a great difference. You rightly point out that thirst,
hunger... are sensations (Biological perceptions). I agree, so I shift
insinct to a Biological behavior, as answer to sensations. IMO instinct is
automatic (passive) and doesn't necessarily need a (SOMish or not SOMish)
mind. When feelings and emotions enter the game, there's the passage from a
"passive reaction" driven by sensations to an "active" search for emotions
as valuable sensations. This different kind of behavior is IMO the
biological "home run": being alive as a dynamic search for a biological
"better" (emotion), rather then a simple biologic "DNA driven" necessity.
You again:
<<Language was the ultimate social achievement (tool)
that became too much for society and constituted the 'machine
code' of the next. I call it "reason", but won't complicate this
elegant picture by explaining that detail.>>
Maybe it's not a detail. Your subtle shift from language to reason to SOM is
IMO the "machine code" of our disagreement. By this, you immediately assume
SOM as the intellectual level. At the moment I don't see any necessity for
the terms Subject and Object. Language is enough. See below.
The consequence is that when I write:
> And if language is the intellectual code, it's also its limit. Language
(in
> every possible forms), used to communicate (even to ourselves), is the
> inherent characteristic of all intellectual patterns. As long as we use
> language we can't go out from 4th level. That's why we are "suspended in
> language". Just like my biological self is "suspended in DNA", and my
social
> self is "suspended in emotions".
You answer:
<<Its limit! Write it twenty times on the blackboard ! :-) See the
implications for our pending discussion about a development
beyond intellect? When intellect-focussed we are suspended in
'reason' or SOM. Intellect is blind to any development above itself -
it's intellect for ever. >>
IMO Language is the limit, while IYO Reason (SOM) is the limit. The Marco/Bo
split is just here!
Initially the application of intellectual tools was just communication, then
other applications came. Control of masses; Investigation of reality;
explanation of phenomenons; religions, philosophies, sciences, arts.
Is it possible to have an intellectual pattern (made of language) without a
subject object logic? I dare answer "yes". I suggest abstract art and jazz.
And MOQ. And quantum physics. Eastern philosophies could give us other
examples....
---------------------------
I take the occasion also to thank 3WD for his "Timeless Way" post.
Effectively these words by the architect Christopher Alexander seem to be
written by Pirsig himself!
TIMELESS. Time is our damnation as citizens of the Giant. Three years ago
I've put my clock in a drawer. It's still there. Since then the amount of my
stress decreased considerably. Try!
tks
Marco
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST