[MD] Seven levels

[Joseph Maurer]

On Saturday 20 January 2007 2:07 PM Mark writes to Case

<snip>

Mark 20-01-7: Abstract equality is an Intellectual pattern (Modern). Social
equality is what i am talking about, and more specifically the subjugation 
of
the female by mail social patterns. I have suggested the source of this
subjugation as a Male static function's metaphysical inability to contain 
Female
Dynamic function. You're not addressing this thesis Case.


<snip>

Hi Mark, Case and all,

(Mark, I love the 'riff' you have added to your identity.) I accept your 
distinction of 'dynamic function' as sq-sq coherence, from 'dynamic quality' 
an analogy for movement between moral levels.

I become so enamored with the octave in music, I want it to be the template 
for 'existence' for evolution of moral levels. I propose the organic level 
to be divided into a male (organic before the evolution in the carbon atom 
to allow penetration of the cell wall) and female level (after the evolution 
of the carbon atom). With this configuration the proprietary awareness level 
(social) evolves from the female level. In watching the science channel I 
was struck by how long it took the hominid level to evolve to 'proprietary 
awareness' (social) level as exemplified in cave paintings. In the sound 
octave the movement between the third and forth note slows down. IMO oxygen 
concentration provided a necessary shock for movement from a third to a 
fourth level.

Pirsig proposed 4 levels. I want 7 levels. Inorganic, male (organic), 
female, proprietary awareness (social), intellectual, meta-social, 
meta-intellectual. The last two are levels of consciousness only, and not 
necessary for cosmic evolution. The possibility of individual evolution in 
consciousness (enlightenment) becomes the s/o divide.

Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Squonkriff at aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)


> Mark, Ian, Marsha,
>
> This came in from Mark. It raised several issues  so I have cleaned it up 
> a
> bit and added comments.
>
>
> Mark 19-01-07:  Marsha raises the question of the social force of Males.
> Interestingly, Male  social patterns do not socially define Female  within
> their Male social  patterns; Male regards Female as, 'other than' Male.
> Not-Mail.
> This is  close to sq stating that DQ is Not-sq.
> Other than sq.
>
> [Case]
> The  sex of deity and the role of the sexes is a function of a host of
> conditions.  Agrarian societies are more like to worship the goddess and
> goddess figurines  are among the most ancient religious artifacts we know
> about.
>
> Mark 20-01-7: Hi Case, This is so because food growth is anthropomorphised
> as a female birth - a Biological pattern. The point in history you refer 
> to
> places Biological patterns central to social organisation.
>
> Case:
> Regarding the role of the sexes as equal is a modern luxury.
>
> Mark 20-01-7: Abstract equality is an Intellectual pattern (Modern). 
> Social
> equality is what i am talking about, and more specifically the subjugation 
> of
> the female by mail social patterns. I have suggested the source of this
> subjugation as a Male static function's metaphysical inability to contain 
> Female
> Dynamic function. You're not addressing this thesis Case.
>
> Case:
> In the past
> sexual roles were determined but the conditions of  existence, the style 
> of
> food gathering, hunting and gathering, planting and  harvest. Women during
> periods of pregnancy, child birth and child rearing  face different
> challenges to personal survival than men and social roles  evolve from 
> these
> differences. The only reason we can have discussions about  the political
> correctness of sex in social roles is because we have lessen  the 
> selective
> pressures that previously determined them.
>
> Mark 20-01-7: You've still not come anywhere near the moq approach i have
> been following: Male static function, Female Dynamic  function.
>
> [Mark]
> (Note: The Christian God has been reified as  extra-worldly has it not, 
> and
> the South American emphasis on the Virgin Mary  rather than Jesus also 
> points
> to a Dynamic 'other-world' view of  God.)
>
> So, here is a possible answer Marsha - Female is a Dynamic function  while
> Mail is a static function.
>
> [Case]
> What manner of rubbish is  this "reified as extra-worldly"?
>
> Mark 20-01-7: This follows from the thesis that the Female is a Dynamic
> function. Dynamic functions cannot be encapsulated by that which is less 
> then
> them and therefore remain, 'other.'
>
> What society regards female as  dynamic and male as passive?
>
> Mark 20-01-7: Your society. This is discussed in Simone DeBouvoir's, 'The
> second sex.'
>
> [Mark]
> (Note: the moq synthesises both as immediate  experience reintroducing the
> divine into everyday life once  more.)
>
> [Case]
> I thought the MoQ was supposed to oppose the divine. But  even if it 
> doesn't
> how was the divine supposed to have been removed such that  it need to be
> reintroduced?
>
> Mark 20-01-7: Theists hoodwink people into thinking the divine is beyond 
> our
> world in order to maintain social authority within organised religions.
> That's why you have to go to church and perform their rituals and pay them
> respect and all that shit.
> When you enjoy a painting the theists rush to tell you its quality was
> inspired from elsewhere; they are really works of a divine nature or God 
> acting
> thru the chosen few.
> The moq says, 'stuff that for a game of cricket, everyone is within DQ and
> as such no social pattern has authority over it.'
> When i say, 'reintroduced' i should have perhaps said, 'reminded.' The moq
> reminds people that every sq patterns partakes of divine nature  (DQ)
>
> [Mark]
> All levels of moq evolution share both Dynamic and static  functions, so 
> may
> this be applied to Ian's question:
> 'Can we ever  "socialise" the (Intellectual) precision needed?' (my 
> insert).
> Perhaps one  way to go about it is to recognise D-function and s-function 
> as
> a parallel  process.
>
> [Case]
> My understanding of this wooly headed view of dynamic  quality is that at 
> the
> instant it begins to have function it ceases to be  dynamic.
>
> Mark 20-01-7: Woke up one mornin' - thought my baby'd been an' gone.
> Sorry, but i did wake up this morning and thought of something i do not
> believe to be have been before explicitly stated in Lila regarding D-f and 
> s-f,
> which may be true non-the less:
> The relationship between parallel D-f and s-f is such that the D-f is 
> always
> evolutionary more advanced than the s-f.
> When that is explicitly stated is looks bleedin' obvious, but i do not
> believe this Universal principle has been stated before now?
> This is precisely why the D-f looks that way - because it is closer to DQ 
> on
> the evolutionary path.
> It's a bit like sticking a Jet engine on Wilbur and Orville Wright's 
> plane.
>
> [Mark]
> One conclusion of this is to avoid Monistic  institutional structures
> (Monarchs) - always structure your institutions with  both D and s
> functions.
> The British Parliament is structured as a parallel  process with an upper 
> and
> lower house; the lower house is democratic and the  upper house is life
> experienced. Ironically, the structure of both houses was  inherited from 
> the
> Church!
> Perhaps Intellectual patterns require a  demarcation between Dynamic
> functions and static  functions?
>
> [Case]
> I fail to see the irony here. Church governance was  a social process that
> had evolved over more than a 1000 years before the  British parliament was
> even considered. There is no mystery or irony in the  adaptation of these
> processes to secular rule.
>
> Mark 20-01-7: That was a by the by.
>
> [Mark]
> What does the static  function of Intellectual patterns look like?
> Possible Answer: The whole  symbolic static repertoire.
> What does the Dynamic function of Intellectual  patterns look like?
> Possible Answer: The way the whole symbolic static  repertoire is 
> arranged.
>
> [Case]
> Again would not that pattern of  arrangement be static? I think this only
> serves to illustrate the problem of  conflating DQ and Quality. It is 
> Quality
> that is undefined not DQ. Here you  are attempting to use DQ as the active
> principle. I whole heartedly support  your effort, BTW.
>
> Mark 20-01-7: I've noted your difficulty with the undefined nature of DQ
> before today and i have to say that i sympathise with you.
> Please remember that a Dynamic function is not DQ itself.
> The term Dynamic is being used in two different ways here and little 
> thought
> has been put into this.
> Would it surprise you to hear that i tend to regard Dynamic functions as
> coherent sq-sq relationships?
> This allows me to agree with you when you say, '...would not that  pattern 
> of
> arrangement be static?' because strictly speaking all coherent  patterns 
> are
> both static AND Dynamic at the same time: Note, the term Dynamic is  not 
> being
> used here in the same way as in DQ.
>
> [Mark]
> Therefore, the  social symbol of the whole symbolic static repertoire is 
> the
> Encyclopaedia.
> The Encyclopaedia is half of the New religion; the  other half is the
> Internet.
>
> [Case]
> Aha, the geometric expansion of  shared memory through technology. A 
> powerful
> idea, run with it,  lad.
>
> [Mark]
> The Millennium dome in the UK should have been a massive  free on-line
> Encyclopaedia built and maintained for the benefit of Humanity  instead of 
> a
> pile  of shit: That would have been an intelligent social  symbol of
> Humanities progress into the new Millennium.
> The Encyclopaedia  would contain free high resolution images and sounds of
> the greatest artists  and thinkers; snapshots of Earth's rich cultures and
> Biological life. In  short, a celebration of Diversity and Understanding - 
> a
> celebration of  Evolution.
>
> [Case]
> But notice the trend in the opposite direction. The  forced attempt to 
> apply
> a capitalist model for the distribution of scarce  good to the regulation 
> of
> the exchange of good in infinite supply. Modern law  does not seem to be 
> able
> to grapple with this. In the US instead of building  a monument we seek to
> appoint luddites to our courts and label jurists  actually living in the 
> 21st
> century as activists.
>
> Mark 20-01-7: I don't claim to be computer savvy, but i hear those who 
> have
> an idealist view of the net wish to make it as democratic as possible by
> making  the net itself the server with each computer acting as an element 
> in the
> whole  server?
> In this sense it would be more like a brain.
> You may know more about this Case?
> I don't even know if this is feasible, but if it were so, would not the
> Genie be out of the bottle?
> And if this is so, the organisation of the World brain would be a Dynamic
> function with static elements?
> Love,
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/