Hi Bo, please ignore my first attempt at a reply under this heading 'skutvik and corteen teach each other' - I corrected some mistakes and have revised my reply under 'education of peter corteen'.
sorry for the mess-up, -Peter On 24/11/2007, Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cool Bo, > > I am relieved that you agree that quality cannot manifest without the > inorganic and you go on to say further that "Quality's first manifestation > was/is the inorganic level"; you add weight to the Krimel's assertions about > a 'Top Down Fallacy'. Straying for a moment from your SOLAQI notion though, > there is another conundrum here in that as quality gets, for want of a > better word, digested by the upper levels it results in increasingly > intentional action that creates new value ultimately reshaping the > inorganic, alluded to by Gav in that thread. > > I guessed that English wasn't your first language. Strictly speaking I'm a > European too but not from the mainland. I'm glad you didn't take offence and > can now say I think I'm improving at translating what you mean when you > discuss these convoluted ideas. > > You paraphrased my original question about cats but even then you do not > give a straight yes or no; are you a Zen monk? > > You then said that "Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part of > the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter where the > 'self-awareness' term - not belong - but was CREATED". I surmise that you > mean no! And further your statement suggests to me you think both the social > and intellectual levels of the MoQ relate only to humans. Also it seems to > me from your statement that you think the term 'self-awareness' is linked to > the use of language; if the cat could refer to itself as 'me' you would then > say it is self-aware. > > Cats are social beings and their behaviour suggests to me that they are > self-aware; for example my sleeping cat reacts almost instantly to me > touching a single one of his hairs. The names for the MoQ levels must relate > to their everyday meaning otherwise we'll all be chasing each other's tails > in these emails forever. The way I see it all life is to some degree > self-aware in that even microbes respond to their environment. > > You confirm my interpretation of your point of view with 'At the bio.(cat) > level this does not include a self or language, particularly not the > internal kind we call "thinking"'. You reinforce this later with 'language > came the silent form called "thinking"'. Agreed that real language is unique > to humans but language is only a means of communication between humans and > thought must take place before being expressed in language otherwise I > wouldn't be able to translate your occasionally quirky use of English. To me > the SA's cougar that hesitates before leaping the ravine clearly indicates > it has a conception of itself and it's future. This is the main reason I > have such difficulty in equating SOM with the intellectual level. Going back > to Pirsig, his second main division was of the static quality into Mind and > Matter and to me that remains the fundamental split of reality into subjects > and objects. > > You have yet to convince me but kind regards, > > -Peter > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
