Hi Arlo, Thanks for the discussion. On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:43 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark prev] > OK, was simply bringing in a bit of Pirsig. I suppose some find him desperate > (at least I so sometimes) it must be hard to try to explain all these things > that are ineffible. > > [Arlo] > Pirsig is not desperate, the people who evoke "you're static" as a way of > trying to give their nonsensical ramblings validity are. Its a common theme > here, say dumb things and then respond with "you're static" when people point > out how dumb they are.
[Mark] The attempt above was to be self-deprecating, not to insult Pirsig. My ramblings do not need validity. They are rhetoric, and stand as such. The story provides awareness and cannot be subjected to rules of truth. Making sense of them is also the duty of the reader. If they seem nonsensical, I will do my best to clarify by responding to specific questions. > > [Mark prev] > All I can say is you are presenting phenomena from the Social level, that is > the integrated "group think" that seem to dominate many. > > [Arlo] > Again, you don't read what I write. "Group think" is a strawman. Language is > social. Humans are comprised of I/B/S/I patterns of value. [Mark] Yes, I agree that language is social, and as such we can place all of it into the social level. I am not sure about the rest of what you say, so have not comment. > > [Mark] > I am just using a knife to separate the levels. > > [Arlo] > You are trapped on the biological level. [Mark] We are all "trapped" in that sense (OMG!). I do not see how one can state that we are the Intellectual level. This would not work in the rhetorical hierarchy of such levels, which are presented as distinct. We do not project the Intellectual Level, it projects our thinking. I have not problem with the biological level, I do not see why you need to be something more. The levels are presented as real, not some projection of our imaginations. We do not create the levels, the levels create us. > > [Mark] > No seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about. > > [Arlo] > You have no idea that static quality is seen as inorganic, biological, social > and intellectual patterns of value? You can't figure out what a "cheeseburger" > is? [Mark] I would reverse your statement and say that the presentation of the levels are as static quality. There is no other way to discuss such things. This does not make them inherently static. These levels are highly dynamic. A cheeseburger is represented through its qualities. We have not concept of what it Really IS. The world is represented through Quality. All we can observe are the qualities projected, thus we create a metaphysics around it to provide meaning. Figuring something out is a personal odyssey > > [Mark prev] > The way you present freedom is through a static representation of such. > > [Arlo] > Static patterns are, to continue the metaphor, structures. Agency is the range > of possibility patterns have to respond to DQ. "Freedom" is a empty concept, > and your "freedom/bondage" is SOM through and through. [Mark] OK, I can use your vernacular. Yes, of course it is SOM, that is the nature of discussion. It cannot be transferred in any other way over the Internet, although sometimes I project by slapping myself in the back of the head. I am fine with your rhetoric about agency, and will try to stick with it. It would appear to represent dynamic quality as such. Freedom is a feeling not a concept. We can have more or less of such a feeling. I do not consider such awareness to be empty. But this would depend on how you are using the word. In some Eastern philosophies the term Empty means something different than it does in the West. > > [Mark prev] > How is it that you claim that a road can bring both freedom and lack of > freedom? > > [Arlo] > Because it gives me the freedom to go many, many places, I just have to follow > the road (and obey the laws) to get to them. [Mark] I suppose that we can call this one form of freedom. That is the freedom of movement by car. OK, I am fine with that. One can feel either free or not so free by this analogy. What is it that provides the feeling of freedom? I do not think it is the road. > > [Mark] > Freedom comes first, then the road. It cannot be the other way around. > > [Arlo] > It is not "the other way around", the freedom and the constraints co-evolve as > patterns respond to DQ. Agency informs structure, which instantly impacts > agency. [Mark] So to make this consistent within MoQ framework, would you say that DQ informs SQ which instantly impacts DQ? > > [Mark prev] > since I often seem to not make much sense in a Western way > > [Arlo[ > Is this what you tell yourself? Mark, you don't make sense in any way. > > [Mark prev] > Now how about our individual consciousness that is free from the Social Level? > > [Arlo] > "Individual consciousness"? You mean subjectivism? Its apparent from > statements > like this that you are still stuck in trying to reconcile S/O thinking, and I > don't know what I can offer to help you with that. [Mark] No nothing like subjectivism. I am speaking of personal awareness. This also has nothing to do with S/O thinking. It is outside of that. It is being aware of and actively involved with dynamic quality. I have some other posts which cover this. > > "This Cartesian "Me," this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our > eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of > the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of > reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines > it. This Cartesian "Me" is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This > body on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same > program, the same "Me," which doesn't belong to either of them. The "Me's" are > simply a program format." (LILA) > [Mark] Yes, that is why he created the levels. To impart meaning to the little homunculus. > "Any language is more than an instrument of conveying ideas, more even than an > instrument for working upon the feelings of others and for self-expression. > Every language is also a means of categorizing experience. The events of the > "rear world are never felt or reported as a machine would do it. There is a > selection process and an interpretation in the very act of response. Some > features of the external situation are highlighted, others are ignored or not > fully discriminated. > [Mark] Yes, the above is within my understanding and have said so in many of my discussions. I would only have a disagreement with what is termed the "external situation". Perhaps you could shed some light on that for me. > Every people has its own characteristic class in which individuals pigeonhole > their experiences. The language says, as it were, "notice this," "always > consider this separate from that," "such and such things always belong > together. " Since persons are trained from infancy to respond in these ways > they take such discriminations for granted as part of the inescapable stuff of > life." (Pirsig quoting Kluckholn in LILA) > [Mark] Whoa, a quote of a quote. Is this like the grapevine? You know what happens with that. > "As the atomic physicist, Niels Bohr, said, "We are suspended in language." > Our > intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived." (LILA) [Mark] OK into physics, I am pretty adept at that. I would very forcefully disagree with Bohr in this area. It would depend on what is meant by description. If it is just words then fine. Otherwise it is a ridiculous statement by Niels. > > I don't expect you to understand the ramifications of this, Mark, its pretty > clear you embrace subjectivism, but why you try to pass that off as a MOQ is > beyond me. [Mark] You are subjectively applying a term to me, who is the one who embraces subjectivism, huh? My intent is to have a discussion, not to pass something off as you say. I would say that you are more guilty of this. My view is anti-subjectivism as I have stated in many of my posts. I am also anit-relativism. I am pro- relationalism, and not as it is presented in Wiki. > > [Mark] > I do this all the time, I do not live in the "road level". > > [Arlo] > You say you "dismissed the road with the blink of an eye" all the time? I bet > you stayed on the road, though, didn't you? Denying its there is not > "dismissing it", dismissing the roads would be to drive irrespective of or > without following the roads. You know you don't do this. But I encourage you > to > try. Today on you way home say "I am not going to follow roads, I will use my > freedom to get from here to there in any direction I freely choose". Do this, > and let me know if your agency is not diminished. I can dismiss the road in the same way I can dismiss my thoughts. They are all physical aspects of our inhabitation here. Dismissing the road does not mean that I will drive off of it. What it means is to relegate it to the static. If one lives in the dynamic moment (DQ) this is not hard to do. Perhaps this is not clear to you yet although I have spent many posts discussing this recently. Besides, I do not make a habit of communicating with myself through words, that is left for the Social Level to do. > > [Mark] > Well, if you are somehow divine, then I apologize. > > [Arlo] > I am not "divine" (you mean "beyond experience"?), I said some of us our more > than the biological level. If the social and intellectual levels are "divine" > to you, that would explain a lot. > [Mark] I am using the divine in a pejorative way. Like saying I am Godly. Please continue to explain what we are that is more than the biological level, I can learn something. Or you can drop it if you wish. > [Mark] > Yes, we are speaking of two different types of freedom. You are speaking of > Social Freedom which is imparted through society. > > [Arlo] > No, I am speaking of human agency, which is increased by structure as it is > simultenously constrained. These structures are inorganic, biological, social > and intellectual. As per the social level specifically, yes, the social level > affords human agency far greater freedoms than man as a biological pattern > only > enjoyed. The intellectual level brought even greater possibility to human > agency than the social delivered. Each level has increased the range of agency > of the patterns involved, while at the same time constraining the range of > their possible activity in unavoidable ways. > [Mark] Well, it has been said often in this forum that the human agency does not exist in the measurable world. So there is nothing to increase or decrease unless one is stuck in static quality (there, I said it again). The levels are dynamic and not structures, but this is just nit-picking on my part. The intellectual level existed long before humans so if you mean brought recently, then you are mistaken. Give me an example of constraint and range of the Intellectual Level, and I may understand what you are referring to. All the best, Mark > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
