Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Sat, 27 Jun 1998 19:30:30 +0100
Tue, 17 Jun 2098 11:12:57 -0500
"clark" <clark@netsites.net>
wrote:
> Bodvar and Lila Squad,
> Reading your post to Jonathan this morning gave me an insight into where
> our differences lie with regard to the MOQ. In the past I have been puzzled
> when you branded my thinking as SOM when it did not seem to be so to me. I
> think I now see where the confusion comes in.
> You wrote:
>> I think the
>> observer/observed phenomenon is confined to the Q-Intellectual
>> level. Mystification of matter is a sure sign of SOM residue.
>> However, the MOQ is a "spiritualisation" of all existence; AN
>> ENORMOUS
>> LIBERATION!!!!
> As I interpret this passage you view the MOQ as a SPIRITUAL continuum in
> which the intellectual level (mind) is no different in operation than the
> inorganic level (or the pre-sentient (uncool) levels). All is under the
> control of the spiritually directed MOQ.
Dear Ken & Squad.
After having sent my "spiritual" message I felt a little regret. Even
if it was in brackets it is the most SOMish term there is (beside
'mind' itself) and easily accepted as such. Yet your formulation:
catches my understanding of the Quality idea splendidly well.
Ken, you have been around the LS since our stone age and have
witnessed a lot of thrashing around with definitions of the
Intellectual level and at various instances: mind, intelligence,
consciousness, awareness and of late - sentient. Only now, fifteen
hundred messages later have we reached some sort of agreement: the
SOTAQI idea is accepted by a majority. Subject-Object-thinking
(self/not self, me/not me, I/this etc) is what gave rise to all
mind-related terms in our language which in turn is the Q-Intellectual
level....which grew in self esteem to believe it was reality itself:
THE SUBJECT-OBJECT METAPHYSICS. This way mind becomes a static rung of
the Q- ladder and not - as in SOM - a separate realm.
> I view the MOQ as a product of the physical organization of the universe
> as it resulted from the falling energy levels at the time of the beginning.
> In this view the uncool level patterns were established from which all
> uncool organization naturally resulted. This is what I consider the origin
> of the "Force for greater information content" that we observe operating in
> the uncool levels of the MOQ. There is no doubt that such a force is in
> effect otherwise we would not be discussing this problem.
> In your view I can see where there is no conflict between the uncool
> levels and the cool levels of the MOQ.
> In my view there is a problem between the uncool levels and the cool
> levels because cool (sentience) superimposes a degree of control into the
> MOQ as a result of the injection of mind (intellectual level) into the
> operating system that was not there in the uncool levels. If we think of
> the Earth as a living system that was built up by the operation of the
> non-sentient (uncool) phase of the MOQ then I think that the injection of
> mind (sentience, cool) into the operation of the MOQ results in a conflict
> between uncool MOQ and cool MOQ as far as the Earth is concerned. Mind
> (cool MOQ) tends to see what is in its short term interest whereas uncool
> MOQ rolls on in it's purely physical direction heedless of cool MOQ.
> Because of the fact that uncool MOQ will always win in any conflict of
> interest with the cool MOQ I think that we need to be aware of these
> possible conflicts and take them into account in our consideration of the
> workings of the intellectual level. Of course, there is never any real
> conflict between cool and uncool MOQ but when you are up to your a-- in
> alligators it is hard to remember that your aim was originally to drain the
> swamp.
> Bodvar, if you can I would like to read your explanation of your
> Spiritual view of the MOQ. Where does the spirituality reside and so forth.
> I think you can see why my point of view impels me to try to reconcile
> the MOQ with Logical Positivism. I am just a literal minded fellow who
> needs to have everything fully explained. I hope you can also see where my
> view of the MOQ does not have a terrible problem with SOM thinking, in the
> intellectual level or otherwise. I also do not have a problem with any of
> Pirsig's construction of the MOQ except that I think it needs to be
> extended to take account of what I see as the potential conflict between
> the uncool and cool divisions of the MOQ. Hope I have made myself
> reasonably clear. Ken
>
Yes, I know your approach Ken, and understand it, but from a Quality
point of view the physical universe is the first static rung and as
"cool" as anything else. I know that some view the Biological level a
little "cool" (sentient) and the Social level even more, and that it
all came to a head with Intellect, but this is not the MOQ idea. A
human being is (of) all levels, but its body value is not different
from other organisms. If I am about to drown and panics (drops down
all value rungs to Biology) I am a life striving to stay alive. This
also goes for Social value, which at its core is as basic as
cave-dwelling tribe. What makes the modern societies human rights
orientated is that they are part of a CULTURE dominated by
Intellectual values.
The reconciliation of MOQ and Logical Positivism (SOM) is the
SOTAQI : Logic (positive and negative) is very much part of the
value patterns that collectively make up the Q-Intellect.
Hope this made it through to your literal mind :-)
Bodvar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST