Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:31:16 +0100
Platt Holden wrote:
> >From the beginning of the LS, Bo has maintained that the Intellectual level
> is SOM (rationality, language, science). It's gradually seeped into my mind
> that Bo is right about this. SOM is the current mental framework and means
> of communication in which we operate from day to day, enabling us to "make
> a living" and enjoy "the good life."
>
> That this level has accomplished wondrous things no one can doubt. One need
> only point to the technology supporting the Internet and the consequent
> emergence of the LS to bow humbly before the power of S-0 intellect.
>
> It' s inconceivable to me that at one time in human history the S-0 concept
> of "me in here and you out there" simply didn't exist. Yet, from what we
> can garner from the unwritten past, such seems to be the case. During that
> prehistoric period, everything was "we," ruled by invisible gods who roamed
> the environment dispensing good and evil as per their whim. The concept of
> "I" as an individual person with some control, however meager, over one's
> own destiny was nowhere to be found. I wonder who was the person who first
> broached the idea of "I," and what horrible punishment the all powerful
> group and their accompanying gods bestowed on her for such heresy.
One "record" of the memory (a perceptive acknowledgement of this event) is found
in Genesis, in the description of Original sin, when the serpent tempted Eve to
tempt Adam to "eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
(Julian Jaynes deals with this concept of the emergence of this human ability in
his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
that we've mentioned here before. If you haven't read it, you'd probably like
to.)
The "punishment" is that people are no longer able to simply exist naturally in
a natural world, comfortable in their unthinking action, doing as their parents
did, never making conscious choices, never knowing that the choices could be
made. (Being driven out of the Garden of Eden.) The "punishment" in making
intellectual choices is having to live with the results of choices. The
"punishment" is having a desire to control even more than we can control, and
being disappointed in being unable to control (to "have") all that we desire..
> The history of man since then could be summarized as the struggle of the I
> against the We, the Intellect against Society, a mighty struggle that
> continues to this day. Whether it's ethnic conflict in Bosnia or political
> correctness in the U.S, the siren call of social quality (now heralded as
> equality) lures individuals back into the SOM-rejecting social level of We.
> (Witness the academic attacks on rationalism and those bad white European
> males.)
>
> Far from condemning SOM, the Metaphysics of Quality holds it to be the
> highest level yet achieved. It is the SOM, the Intellectual Level, that
> distinguishes between me in here and the mob out there and has bestowed on
> me the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> Thank you SOM for granting me freedom from social approval, from group
> think, from the evils of Churchism, Statism and the growing appeal of
> Oneworldism.
>
> I also thank SOM for containing within itself the power to see its own
> weaknesses, whether it be recognition of its self-contradictions or it's
> discovery of the quantum world where S-0 is no longer a viable dichotomy.
> It is these chinks in the otherwise admirable fortress of the SOM that
> raise the issues addressed in the MoQ.
>
> It is not the purpose of the MoQ to poke away at these chinks in hopes of
> toppling the SOM edifice but rather to fill them in so one can understand
> himself and the world more fully and clearly. The largest chink is, of
> course, values. SOM explains a lot, but doesn't explain them. Unless that
> hole is filled, SOM risks erosion and eventual dissolution, with humanity
> falling back into the killing fields of the social level with its churches,
> cults and sacrifice of self for the sake of an invisible God of the Public
> Good.
>
I think that the level you're referring to, the "social level" with its
churches, cults, etc. is the instance in which certain individuals participate
in the intellectual level, but their effect on the social patterns is through
leadership, ie. one person has an insight, and others are affected by this
insight because they follow through social/biological mechanisms such as
loyalty, imitation, perception of coercion.
I think there are different sets of social/intellectual structures, in which
whole groups of people can rise to participate in the intellectual level, and
through the acceptance of these structures, such social practices as science,
inquiry, and willingness to explore, to be aware of as much information as
possible, have come to be "new", intellectually-mediated social structures.
But that is not the same as a new level. It's more like a social pattern that
has put down new roots, reformed the biological and inorganic in such a way that
higher awareness and participation is possible on more of the levels. It
might require a smaller quantity of support (as the amount of land needed to
support a person, which has decreased) but it does not, however, negate the
supporting role of lower levels, (consider the number of third-world workers who
support one American, or the need of an army (an entity prepared to interact in
social/biological ways) to protect the social/intellectual existence of the
people of a nation). If the underlying support is lost, for whatever reason,
even if it is through the "enlightment" of the people who formerly maintained
that support, the whole system collapses, being able to reform itself with its
center of gravity in lower levels, (witness political correctness that follows
after the original enlightment of experience with diversity)
I don't think we need a new level to explain them. (Though there still might
be a new level coming into being. I just don't think it's needed here.
> To fill the hole may require a new level above SOM. I'm not sure about
> this. After all, the MoQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning. Yet it
> points to an attitude that's different from SOM, an attitude of "Push on
> until you capture the beauty of the thing, because if it isn't beautiful,
> you really haven't got it yet." Great scientists, dedicated SOMers, have
> this attitude. They understand its importance. They may even realize that
> without this element of quality, (the "unconditioned" as Anthony McWatt put
> it), their endeavors within the SOM structure and the structure itself may
> ultimately fail.
>
Do you need a new level to explain beauty? Or is beauty found in seeking
balance and seeking the surprise that can be appreciated because the balance is
there to keep it from causing harm?
> So I fully agree with Bo's insight that the SOM and the Intellectual Level
> are one and the same. To support it, to protect it, to avoid losing it and
> sinking back to "anything goes" irrationalism or a "because God says so"
> mentality, we need to recognize its vulnerability to attacks from academic
> philosophers, social do-gooders, spiritual evangelists and it's own
> internal paradoxes. To that end, the MoQ is the best S-O answer I've found
> yet.
>
I didn't mean to pick on your piece, Platt. It's a fluent perspective that
allows MoQ to and subject/object functions to coexist and complement each
other. That can only be good.
Actually, I'm not disagreeing with anything. I keep wanting to wrestle this
socia/biological and social/intellectual stuff out, and even if the rest of you
have already settled it in your minds, I keep needing to rethink it from
different perspectives. And you guys are good at providing perspectives.
<grin>
Thanks, Platt.
Maggie
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:42:56 CEST