Hi John 23 Dec. u wrote
I had said > ..... But dear John I have railed against the intellect as > awareness" (self-consciousness) which is SOM's "holy grail". Will > return to that if you express some interest.. John: > Ok, then, this is me expressing SOM interest. It seems plain to me > that SOM is the actual kindergarten of the 4th level. It is the very > most basic metaphysics possible, the "Metaphysics for Idiots" if you > will. It's not expedient of me to split hairs over this even if I would have liked to say that SOM IS THE 4TH LEVEL. All of it, every last bit!!! There may be simpler and more advanced S/O patterns, the most advanced - Pirsig's of value as existence's base - is in the process of taking off on a purpose of its own. > Social intelligence, that magic self/other dichotomy that > prevails upon the 3rd level patterns, reaches an "objective" point > where it is fundamentally objectified as the fundament of being - > self/other; subject/object metaphysics. This is good and even less useful of me to split hair over, but the self/other were perhaps not THE trigger - the true train of events is described in the ZAMM - but never mind. > Getting stuck here is a big mistake that amateur metaphysicians make in > their youthful ignorance, and beginning metaphysical discussion groups > get stuck on because that is the nature of lowest common denominators. I'm afraid it's not about amateurs. After the Greeks had established the subject/object split it widened into a bottomless chasm - AKA SOM - and from than on even the most advanced thinkers took it for granted (as existence's "lowest common denominator") just as self-evident as the 3rd. level took the god-run reality. Immanuel Kant no amateur exactly was SOM's final word and no one "cried foul" regarding SOM until this madman from Bozeman Montana. Bo before: > > Speaking about the social-intellectual separating moment I remember > > your dad Ken writing about some burial sites recently discovered > > (how old I don't remember) and I believe his opinion was that THIS > > spelt the bio.-socio. transition (and I agree). > Ah well, I disagree there, as I've said before I think the bio/social > transition occurs in mammalian bonding patterns which create the > self/other dichotomy and bond it to higher brain function through > chemical/emotional reinforcement within that same brain. Thus > according to this formulation, the 3rd level begins with Mammals and > ends with SOM. The 4th level begins with SOM, and doesn't have any > end. OK, there are many candiates for what biological pattern got too dynamic to be contained by the 2 nd. level and "took off on a purpose of its own" to form the 3rd. I won't let this spoil our "shocking" agreement above. Bo before: > > Scott-Peck's I haven't heard about, but his Chaotic - Rule bound - > > Agnostic - Mystic is the SQ levels in different words. Fantastic! It > > proves that many thinkers have been on to the same notion. Remember > > Scott Robert and his Owen Barfield (the "participation scheme)? > Umm, no. Musta been before my time. If you check the archives you'll find Scott on Barfield through many years around 2000 I guess. > Scott Peck was most famous for his Pop-psych book, The Road Less > Traveled, but his most profound thinking, imo, came with two later > books, A Different Drum and People of the Lie. For a really good > example of his theory of individual spiritual development tho, the > quickest and most enjoyable route is a Bill Murray movie, Groundhog > Day. I loved that movie when it came out in theaters, even to the > extent of seeing it four times and paying full price - a rarity indeed > for a guy who lives by the words, "Kids, we'll wait till it comes out > on video." In the movie, the main character goes through the four > stages Peck describes, almost to the letter. It was so amazing to me > that I was convinced there must be some connection between the writer > of the movie and Peck's book. But I've never seen any evidence so I > guess it was just one of those "perennial philosophy" things whereby > different minds stumble over the same truth. If you haven't seen it, > the main character, a local tv weatherman, gets trapped playing out the > same day over and over and at first, after the initial denial, he > decides to indulge in selfish pleasures - eating, having sex, stealing > money and just generally following the stage one of character > development of the narcissistic childishness. When this gets tiresome, > he looks outside himself for a structured relationship and falls in > love, attempting to win the heart of his co-worker by manipulation. > This doesn't work and he despairs, entering then into the third stage > of Emptiness and even tries to kill himself, over and over. Finally, he > comes to the realization and growth of that communal/mystic > consciousness that Peck described, but Murray showed plainly. The movie > is great, the book is great. Both together are fantastic. Sorta like > MoQ Discuss. Will try to find and buy that film. A bit more on your " ... But I've never seen any evidence so I guess it was just one of those "perennial philosophy" things whereby different minds stumble over the same truth." Yes, there are such and I mentioned Owen Barfield's "participation" scheme that matches the social - intellectual - MOQ steps. However without the initial S/O - D/S (dynamic/static) in-out turning of the metaphysical "sock" all these "new" ideas are just stirrings within MIND - and because the mind/matter divide is SOM - SOM goes on unscathed. See you. 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/
