Marsha
19 Oct. :
Marsha originally:
> > > What is the nature of a pattern in the Inorganic Level?
Bo
> >Inorganic patterns of value is the first stage of the static
> >hierarchy. This stage loosely corresponds to SOM's "nature" but the
> >comparison must not be taken too literally because it does not simply
> >mean "matter" but includes the forces (that in SOM are immaterial)
> >and fields ... whatever.
> >Pirsig's about MOQ's level arrangement not being new is a little
> >misleading as it really don't match at all - MOQ and SOM are worlds
> >apart - but more about this later if you want to pursue this subject.
Marsha now:
> I'd be most grateful to have someone go through this with me.
> My question is not so much what does an inorganic spov represent, but
> what is the nature of a spov in the Inorganic Level. My thinking is
> that it is primarily conceptual (although it has an emotional
> component). As a pattern of value is conceptual, it has as its
> referent inorganic phenomena.
The MOQ starts by rejecting SOM's subject/object divide as reality's
basic split (in favor of its own dynamic/static one) thus there is no
conceptual as contrasted to "real" (inorganic static patterns in this
case) at least when we see things from MOQ's dynamic position
outside its static hierarchy. However the former SOM has become the
intellectual level and here the S/O rules and here we may speak about
language concepts as different from what it is about. "The nature of a
spov" conveys the same "forbidden" S/O split outside of intellect.
There is no nature to inorganic patterns, no emotional component or
anything.
And yet we can't be all Zen-ish (cagey) regarding the levels and I've
found this list of their respective "expressions" most useful:
Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason
Inorganic value expresses itself as interaction, the biological by
sensation, the social by emotion and intellect by reason.
> When I use the word conceptual, I mean a spov is primarily mental
> activity. I do not mean a nice neat definition, or primarily language,
> but all that can be held in mind pertaining to the phenomena? Am I
> making any sense this far?
Mental as contrasted to corporeal is another S/O. Your "...I use the
word..." seems to imply that we live inside a conceptual bubble
impossible to escape, but this is seen from intellect's S/O. As seen
from the MOQ language is nothing more than a most useful social
pattern, this one intellect adapt for conveying its own S/O-reasoning
among those that language belongs to a conceptual realm different
from what it conceptualize.
Do this make sense to you?
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/
