> Hi Bo, Marsha said: >>> Seems to me a view is a static pattern of value. Why couldn't a >>> pattern exist in both the social level and intellectual level? One >>> based on belief and habit (social), the other based on a patterns >>> within science and a patterns within philosophy (intellectual). >
Bo said: > ...The levels are results of > dynamic efforts to free existence from the strictures of the former > level, Steve: Well put. Note also that there could not be static latching if this dynamic effort did not support the former level. Social patterns emerged to support life. Intellectual patterns emerged to support societies. Bo: > thus all patterns of the lower level exists inside the upper. > (as Pirsig says "all patterns are contained inside the intellectual > level) Steve: This sounds like Ken Wilbur, not Pirsig. Where does he say this? I imagine context is important to understand such a quote. > >> Steve: >> I think social patterns are the hardest thing to understand about the >> MOQ. As I see it, beliefs are intellectual. Habits to the extent they >> refer to habits of mind like dividing experience into categories of >> subjects and objects are patterns of thought and are intellectual as >> well. > > How complicated is it possible to make such an elegant system > as the static levels? Language is (originally) a social pattern - the > ultimate one - but was adopted by intellect to serve its value. The > term "belief" in a social (religious) context indicates devotion to > God, but will in an intellectual context be used to express > devotion to democratic institutions. Bo: I'm not sure what your point here is. Regards, Steve 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/
