Hi Marsha: > 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.
Well, it's the ideas behind it that is important really. This was mostly an attempt to make an example. From where I stand now it seems to work. IMO chris > 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. >> 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/
