Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:30:53 +0100
Hello Maggie and Lila Squad!
On Nov. 18 you wrote (to Hugo):
> I'm going to throw something kind of new at you, a different slant on
> "intellectual".
>
> (I probably ought to admit, and this is as good a place as any, that the whole
> huge LS discussion of SOM evades me. I can't figure out what the point is. )
The letter (far) below I wrote mostly in response to this, but I
will start by commenting your Nov.22 response to my FAQ suggestions.
Re.no. 3: My "Organic" was just an old habit(!), "Biological" is
fine.
" 4: Yes, I think capital letters are useful in naming the
basic levels.
" 5: The "ange" is "change". You see, I write in WordPerfect,
but when copying to Pegasus via the Clipboard there is a little bug
that randomly "eats" two digits at a time. Usually I find the
misspellings, but it happens that a few go undetected.
" 8: Your addition is valid. I am not adamant about my
version, it's just that I wanted to make these first introductory
definitions as pregnant as possible.
" 9: What you say about the Intellect is just right on. Read
my original letter to see if that makes sense.
" 11: You are right, Richard Rigel is an advocate of social
rules, but he is so from a "Victorian" point of view where good
behaviour is ....keeping one's nose clean, and staying out of
trouble.... My letter contains something about the Socio-Intellectual
relationship too.
...............Nov. 23 ..........................................
I am not sure what you mean by: " the huge LS discussion of
SOM evades me...etc". Is it the contemptuous tone some of us use when
naming the Subject/Object Metaphysics, or does it just relate to the
the present "negotiations" over the Intellectual level?
Your idea of dialects (of a particular language) as shifting
from Intelectual - to social patterns is good, and can be
added on later in more deep analyses, I just want to make this
early portions of the FAQ as terse as possible. Also, I
have "warned" about the elusiveness of the top level and the danger
of equating it with thinking as such ( the mind, or mental of SOM).
This is not your trouble, perhaps it is the subtle ways of
interacting with its social parent? Let me tell about [my
interpretation of] a typical Socio/Intellect conflict as it unfolds
itself in Norway right now.
It's been a great commotion over a Bishop council's vote on
homosexuals and their role in the Church. The press, and everyone who
wants to be regarded progressive and liberal, mock the cerical
preoccupation with sex, and asks why this is so terribly
important...etc but on the other hand; They themselves give the
Church's decision an importance that is way out of proportions to
religion's normal influence.
Why this double riddle? From a Quality point of view it is
obvious: Religion as we know it is the arch-carrier of social value,
and as each level's first mission is to liberate itself (by
controlling) from the lower level, it is no wonder why the Church is
preoccupied with sexuality. It is the foremost value of Biology!. It
is also clear why the liberals are busy condemning the priests:
Societal interference with FREEDOM is Intellect's chief evil!
Didn't you Maggie once say that one complete dimension of
reality is invisible? How true! Our culture is tinted by the glasses
of Intellect. Its value (freedom from social bonds) is the only legal
goal. The term 'moral' is not used about noble freedom; no, no, that
is reserved for the contemptous old-fashioned, religion-based
naggings. And yet, the social component of existence is as active
to-day as it ever was, and such paradoxical conflicts - like the one
I have told about - occur.
The point of my story is that we - human beings - are cohesion of all
value levels. From SOM the two lower ones are completely out of
sight, and also the Social plane is mostly invisible, but its impact
is as strong today as it ever was and hence its "interface" with
Intellect has caused most of the problems up through the ages. Some
individuals are more rooted in the collective than in freedom
(from the collective), yes, whole cultures can be focussed
differently (this has nothing to with IQ of course). As I said above,
rights & freedom are the only legal causes seen from the Western
(Intellect) point of view, while Collective-focussed cultures abhor
what they see as lawlessness and social dissolution. This puts the
Islam versus West conflict in a completely new light, as it does the
West vs China about human rights. May I add...., as it does with
everything that one points the magic wand of Quality at.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:15 CEST