Chris and Magnus On 9 Feb. Chris wrote:
> Magnus! Bo! > It seems that this is now a little inter-Nordic discussion here - not > a bad thing I'd say: Brödrafolkens Väl, trots allt =) (smiley) > Magnus wrote: > >The problem with your SOLAQI is the same problem I've been talking to > >Ron about. It assumes our reality consists of thoughts alone. > >Thoughts of eating, thoughts of conspiring and then the grand > >thoughts of intellectual abstraction. > I wonder over this. I don't see how the interpretation that the SOM is > the forth level says that our reality consists of thoughts alone. Thanks Chris, Magnus' post shocked me a bit. How is it possible to misunderstand so grossly. > Indeed, the thoughts, are not really thoughts as such I would say, not > in the whole of it, but only a response do DQ - a response that gains > its character by all the levels that builds up the static patterns of > value that perceives DQ. Yes, well everything is responses to DQ, but I believed Magnus agreed on the biological origin of what intellect call "thinking", and, like you say, gained by each levels that have adopted this capacity. But only at the intellectual level did the (value of) the split between "thinking/what's thoughts are about" occur. > The fact that SOM says that it IS thoughts, and that they are separate > from everything else is then perhaps in it self an interpretation that > is built upon four levels of static patterns of value. If we remove the > 4th level, the remaining three levels can still, as much as anything > respond to DQ, and it does. "Thinking" is there, but not there, since > it is a construction of the 4th level, at least the way we "think about > thinking" so to speak. Exactly, most encouraging that one single person at last see this context. > But the functions of the biological brain is still there, it's capacity > to respond to DQ the same as ever. How it interprets this DQ depends on > what level is the dominant one however. If this is so, that would > suggest that the 4th level could be the SOM, since it brings about > another way to interpret the DQ that is around, that is totally > different from the way that Biological or Social patterns wound respond > to it. The term Thought is invented, and a new way of responding to DQ > comes about. Right, maybe I would say that the distinction between a thought and what it's about .. is invented, but the term itself requires the latter, just as all intellect's dichotomies does: Subjective requires objective, mind requires matter, mental requires corporeal and so on ad infinitum. > I have written this down though this is far from a cemented view of > mine. I am about to write a essay that my examinatior finds to > somewhat outlandish, in that I have the mind to go back and examine a > few Roman or Greek texts, in an appropriate time (Cicero's texts was > the first that came to mind) to try to se if it can be determined that > the view of the self, and the thoughts of the self, as separate from > the world was around, so to speak - indeed, if the SOM distinction had > won ground. Chris. I'm really excited about this. The first application of the - um - real MOQ. > >When you claim that SOLAQI would constitute a 4th level, you say that > >only those thoughts that are about SOM belongs to the 4th level, > >right? And at the same time you dismiss other thoughts to lower > >levels. *That's* my problem with SOLAQI. For Magnus: "Thoughts about SOM"!!?? I say that SOM (or intellect) is the value of distinguishing between thoughts and what thoughts are about. When an intelligent animal faces a task/problem it surely brings out images from its memory and creates imaginary situations "if so is done, such will be the result" (wordless of course), but it's we - from intellect who says that this is imaginary or takes place at an abstract plane, the animal does not know any S/O distinction. Human beings of the social level - who adopted this biological capability - did perhaps know dreams from the wake state, but there was no S/O distinction. Dreams was regarded as visions of the future, and what we call thoughts weren't ABOUT any objective reality, but could change it ...you see the idea?. This also shows the impossibility of Pirsig's "manipulation of symbols" definition of intellect. The said animal surely manipulated symbols but this does not make them "intellectual" nor are the social level. Only with the 4th level did the distinction between symbols and what they symbolize dawn upon mankind. THAT'S INTELLECT!!! Magnus ctd: > >There's no metaphysical (fundamental) difference between different > >types of thoughts. Thoughts all end up in the same box, regardless of > >what they're about. Otherwise, if you do as you do, a stone and a > >thought of that stone would both end up in the same box. And that's > >just plain wrong. This is the result of your initial misunderstanding, from what I write above you will see. At least Chris does (below) > Ah, well, as said, there is no thoughts then really, just the notion > of thoughts (the 4th level) - and when that distinction, that the > thoughts are separate, breaks though, that would constitute a new > level I'd say.. I agree unto tears. > Perhaps anyway, but one thing that occurs to me it that this may not be > able to be accredited to the Greeks, maybe it can, but also it might me > much older. That may be a question of history though - something I > cannot resist going into most of the time =) Because the 4th. level emerged out of the 3rd. the first intellectual stirring were something that undermined the parent level and I see the old Greek thinkers' search for eternal principles as just that. They (the principles) transcended the old mythological - social - reality. But if you have other candidates I'm all ears, yet intellect is the S/O distinction THAT I hope we agree about. See you (all) Bo 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/
