Greetings Chris, I am not inclined to agree or disagree with your conclusions. As I read your little tale, I seemed to be reading some vague 'we said' - 'they said' generalities. Assumptions were made, then conclusions drawn.
Marsha At 05:52 AM 2/14/2008, you wrote: >All of You > >Some of what is said here may seem unimportant or elementary to you, some of >it however may not, so - MOQers bare with me on this one: > > > >Some time ago me and two friends were at a small hostel in the North of New >Zeeland, we were sitting in the garden and eating our cheap, poorly cooked >meals when a class of American students joined us in the afternoon sun. The >three of us had been sitting talking about the various things we always talk >about, the future, love and the general nature of the world and our place in >it, but after a while we all trailed of as we couldn't help but listening to >the loud conversations taking place across the lawn. > Our fellow travellers where arguing, laughing and speaking > in each others >mouths, clearly a group of people that knew exarchate quite well. But as we >sat there we was dumbfounded over one especially strange phenomena. There >seemed to be no thought behind the words spoke whatsoever. That is, during >the two hours we sat there in the sun, no analysis of any kind accompanied >the statements of observation that was all the Americans conversation was >constructed of. It was ALL statement. "I did that, then he did that and we >reacted thus" Statements of facts, statements of reaction to things >observed. No analysis whatsoever. We marvelled over this with mixed >feelings. It was clearly a nice group of people who were having a lot of >fun, and on some level we envied that, while at the same time we were >feeling alienated because of the things that was being stated. On some level >is the key here. > Because later we would discuss this further, being one of > those groups of >people who like to sit around with some cigarettes and coffee and philosophy >in our own lazy manner when we have the chance, and we concluded that the >feeling of both aversion and some kind of envy had been with us in many >situations such as this - mostly on parties and such. > It stuck me later what the answer to all of this was. Here > were two sets of >Good, two sets of Quality competing against one another. Reasoning is an >attribute to the 4th level, that seems clear, and the conclusion I have >drawn is that people can be more or less dominated by any of the levels. >When we sit around, reasoning about things in general, analyzing, we are >following our inclination to the 4th level, we would seem to be individuals >that are far more dominated by the 4th, reasoning level then any other. The >Americans in question was all consumed by the social level, everything they >did, thought and said was done in service to the social level, of which >reasoning is not part. I have no doubt that most of them would be able to >reason just fine, had they deemed it a Good thing - however - they didn't >need to, because in the situation they where, social values were the >dominant level. The social level also has an immune system towards >reasoning, and it's summoned up in the word "nerd". Nerd means "of low >social Quality" and they are right! > All of us will occasionally let our biological > interpretations of what is >Good run free - most notably in bars and such, but we know how Low Quality >it would be to let this overwrite our social interpretations of Good - or >our intellectual. Most of the time. Depending on how strongly one is >dominated by a given level though. > My point though is that the group of Americans DID think, > they did use >their brain capacity fully, for they were in no means stupid, but everything >they did with their brains was done from a social view of Quality. Maybe >they could reason fine, as I said, but they didn't. Now, at present time, >rationality is continuing it's crusade against the lover levels of Quality, >and it is doing it by perhaps the most efficient weapon ever: school. So >today, for a person grown up in a western country it might very well be >impossible not to know of rationality, of the basic Subject/Object ideas, >but it IS possible not to service that level, and to be a totally social >being - a biological might be possible to, if it weren't for the fact that >the social and intellectual levels have a tendency to lock anybody who does >so in a small room for a few years. > From a MOQ perspective, it is all just different ways of reacting to >Quality, but that is the way we see it - if we truly do. > > >I put it to you that the different value patterns are essentially all >different ways of which to respond to and interpret Quality, and within >every level, that specific way to react to Quality is all that matters. This >is beeing said from a MOQ perspective, who in this since is so fundamentally >different from all the other levels that it has the potential to bring about >a new level of it's own. It will most likely not happen in the nearest 500 >years, the first step would probably be for rationality to gain total >supremacy of the social level, but this all fits, and that's the important >part of it. > >------------- >Chris > >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/ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
