Bo,
> The 4th.level (SOM) is born from the 3rd. - no disagreement there, but > "born of social reasoning"? Reason or rationality indicates an > objective, intellectual attitude while the social ditto is emotional. Yet, > people before the 4th. level surely had a purpose for their actions ...as > we have when on that plane: because we love or hate, feel obligations, > sees as out duty ... and so on. > Here's my thinking: I agree that the social level is *tied* to emotion and the 4th level is * tied* to intellect, but as codes of art which interpret between these levels rather than saying the 4th level *is* intellect. I say S/O consciousness is born of social relations because without a concept of self and other, there is no S/O thinking. Also, without a self, there is no emotion. Whatever emotion I can think of, it stems from caring about self, percieving a self. If there was no self/other-consciousness, I would have no emotion whatsoever about being eaten by a tiger or appreciating a sunset or a painting. I put intellect as the code of art interpreting BETWEEN the 3rd and 4th levels of being. When intellectual thinking becomes statically latched into a comprehensive philosophical system, that static pattern that remains is the 4th level pattern, of which there are many. Thus I term the 4th level, the "philosophical" or "metaphysical". Emotions in this formulation, are also understood as the code of art which mediates between the 2nd level and the 3rd. When biological beings evolve enough caring - they join into self-perpetuating societies, the social pattern is brought into being. > > Before there can be a society, there must be a relationship between > > self and other. > > That's obvious, but the self/other distinction is something deeper than > than the social "individual/other individuals", it's biology, its immune > system is based on a "self/not-self" recognition. Here's where I go off on my boob tangent. Self-notself is a very rudimentary emotional level that I can't even find confidence in asserting. But the self-other bonding that occurs in mammals is exactly what I see as "emotional". Cows have emotional relationships, likes and dislikes, whereas lizards don't. Comparing reptiles and mammals illustrates exactly and empirically the theoretical line between instinct and emotion: between biological and social. There's more I'd like to say concerning the evolution of human society and the way repression (weaning) exhibits in drive to evolve intellectually, but I'll keep it short this morning so I can respond to the rest of your post. > > Taking this self/other dichotomy as fundamental is SOM. > > Yes. > > > It's the most rudimentary metaphysical stance there is. > > Listen John. The MOQ postulates the "upper level born of the lower > > Listen Bo, the MoQ postulates a "code" which intereprets between the levels. > > Now, if this self/other dichotomy is taken as fundamental, > > The professor must expound: The intellectual level (in the Western > world, the Eastern I leave here) did not emerge as any "self/other-as- > fundamental" movement, Well I'm thinking more about Descartes than the Greeks. The Greeks were so far away from us that I'd say it's too easy to read into them what you want to read, rather than what they were really doing. I mean, all you have to do is survey the many, many differing interpretations over the years of what they thought and you'll come to the conclusion that it's not easy to pigeonhole. > but as the notion of principles that > transcended the old social, mythological reality. This ended with the > notion of Truth (the master-principle) which Socrates pitted against > Apparent (whatever distorts Truth) a dichotomy they regarded as > fundamental. This proto S/O then started its snowballing of ever more > complex and new dichotomies until Descartes when a abyss opened > between one mind and another mind. From then on began SOM's > troubles - the empiricists, then Kant and after him philosophy threw up > its hands and declared reality inscrutable. And there things stood until > Pirsig entered the scene. > I've been reading Royce this morning and I have somewhat to comment upon this, but alas, I must go. Lemme send what I've done and get back to you this eve. Take Care! john > > > then everything works according to mechanistic laws of interaction and > > the highest value is unconsciously (as in science )or consciously (as > > in Randian individualism) assigned to the self. This perversion of > > morality sees nothing wrong with fudging data to promote academic or > > professional careers, because after all, when it comes down to it, it's > > all about the me. > > This really is philosophy after Kant. All kinds of theories either going to > the subjective extreme or the objective extreme. No one daring to > confront the SOM - not KNOWING any SOM - everyone believing that > the mind/matter schism was how existence had been assembled "at > the factory". > > > The MoQ analyzes this value system and finds it wanting because the > > self is meaningless without a social and environmental context to > > define and nurture ... > > Yes, the intellectual level's self-mind (isolated from other self-minds > and from the world) is meaningless without the social level, which is > meaningless without the biological, which is meaningless without the > inorganic level. > > > ....and thus it is the value of the all over the individual that > > brings us to enlightenment. > > This was a bit cryptic, but if your "all over the individual " is social > value > it surely was a prerequisite for intellectual enlightenment, like intellect > was necessary for the QUALITY ENLIGHTENMENT. > > > Now if I could just convince Ham. Just kidding. I'll roll that rock to > > the top of the hill once or twice, but when it always rolls back on me, > > I quit. > > Your stone-rolling comrade. > > Bodvar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > 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/
