I appreciate your presence and comments highly. Compared to
your exemplary notes the MD has deteriorated badly: Messages written at the spur of the moment with headings and fragments thrown all over the place - and hardly any Pirsig reference or relevance at all. Remember the good old Lila Squad days ...sob!. Well it can't be helped :-). You said.
> Bo, I am sorry, but I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or
> not.
We have different approaches .... because we arrive from different
positions perhaps.
> Let me clarify.... my point was that it is more accurate to say that
> the level is made of values sharing certain characteristics than it
> is to say that a level is a semi conscious entity with wants and
> desires and such.
The consciousness part was ill chosen. When an organism - deprived of food - experiences low biological value it isn't correct to say that it is conscious of being hungry. The biological "expression" is SENSING in my increasingly humble opinion.
> I think people really do get hynotized by language
> sometimes to take a metaphor too seriously. There are biological
> entities and social entities, but there is not a biological level
> with selfish wants and desires. Certainly we can pass on some
> concepts by characterizing them this way, but let's not overdo it.
> We CAN avoid this metaphor where inappropriate if we want to. That
> is to say, when it is of better quality to avoid anthropomorphising.
Agree.Your attitude is to look upon language as an hypnotized
state - a secondary reality in contrast to the real one, but this opens the S/O rift again. Mine is slightly different, namely to look upon Intellect as the value of SEEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN the hypnotized/ unhypnotized state - which is the quintessence of the SOM.
See you at the MF
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
