Hi Peter: Steve: > >> I can't think of what meaning a meta-level of the MOQ would have while >> thinking of the levels as types of patterns of value. >>
Peter: >So Steve are you saying that there are no possibilities for thinking outside >of social and intellectual constraints? Steve: Yes. That doesn't mean that all experince is limited to inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual types. There is also dynamci experience that is unpatterned. Talking about such experience is done within the confined of socially maintained symbols manipulatied intellectually. Thought outside intellect is impossible because thought and intellect are the same think. Pirsig says that intellect is simply thinking. Peter: >Each level developed out of the >limitations of the immediate supporting level. There must have been a stage >when the evolution of the intellectual level was in it's infancy. If SOM is >the characteristic of intellectual thought is there not possible a kind of >thought that operates from a better perspective? Steve: There are certainly better and worse perspectives, but thought is still thought. Thought doesn't turn into something else if it's based on a better prespective. I often worry about what people mean when they talk about "levels" in the MOQ. It is a good word to use to highlight the establishment of an evolutionary hierachy of patterns of value. But these levels aren't to be thought of as levels of personal evolution as some seem to use them. As such they would be pretty useless since just about everybody (with the exception of brain damaged and severly mentally retarded people) participates in intelletcual patterns and thus "reaches the intellectual level." As stages of development or levels of awareness they are passed through very quickly. Piaget's sensory motor stage might correspond well with inorganic and biological awareness alone. But very soon the child begins to copy facial expressions and is on his way to participating in social patterns. Certainly by three years old, children are able to provide rationales for their behavior and are thus participating in intellectual patterns. So stages of development of levels of awareness don't seem to me to be a very useful understanding of the levels. As types of people, it may be useful to talk about whether a person is relatively more domninated by biological, social, or intellectual patterns of value as we see in the characters of Lila, Rigel, and Phaedrus. But when you are talking about the MOQ as a meta-level, we need to think about what the levels fundamentally are which is types of patterns of value. I suspect in your "meta-level" of the MOQ you may intend for it to be a level of awareness above intellectual awareness, and I think there may be something to that line of thought. But as a type of pattern of value, to me it doesn't make sense to think of the MOQ as anything but an intellectual pattern of value. Reagrds, 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/
