[MD] What's missing

[Ron Kulp]

Ron and Group 

On 26 Mar. you wrote:

> The Social level seemed to emerge when the individual competition for 
> survival diminished by forming Hunting or gathering groups.

The upper level's purpose is to free existence from the constraints of
the former level, thus social value must be seen in this context, not as
mere grouping together, a beehive is a "gathering group" and chimpanzees
form hunting parties. Social value shows as the first attempts to
counter biology's eating, proliferation and dying so it's the notion of
an existence beyond 
which is the first Q-social pattern.
[ron]
"The upper level's purpose is to free existence from the constraints of
the former level"
I argue the agreement to cooperate rather than compete is freeing
existence from the constraints
Of the former "every one for them selves" level. Animals exhibit complex
social groups also.
Ever read "The naked ape" by Desmond Morris?

> Intellectualizing I feel began with language not communicative for 
> Communicative started with labeling. Just when humans began to look at

> their surroundings and Ask why? Is speculative but I think the 
> awareness of death played a role as we discussed. Perhaps death 
> started the intellectual level and still figures heavily in it.  All 
> Religeons are death oriented to give life a meaning.

You are one level ahead of the MOQ it seems. It's the human beings'
grasp of a greater context than the biological that indicates social
value. This may be called awareness of death, but as much "defiance of
death" and paleontologists regards graves (burying rituals) as the  sure
sign of culture ("social patterns" in our lingo) This was not religion
as we know the term, only after tens of thousand of years did theism
arrive. 

And only after THAT did DQ begin its task to free existence from the
social constraint and ZMM describes how it began with the first Greek
thinkers' search for eternal principles something that ended with the
first recognizable forms of intellect's S/O with Aristotle. Then more
centuries - close to two millenniums really - before intellect began to
dominate the Western (social) culture in 
its final subject/object form. 

[ron]
I agree, I think you misunderstood. I was using the emphises of death in
religeon to support
The statement" Perhaps death started the intellectual level and still
figures heavily in it."          

> MOQ is life oriented and perhaps Why it feels like a budding 5th.

Well, at least it is a "meta-level" that contains the MOQ. It displays
some level-like characteristics regarding its parent - intellect -  but
I would not call it a static level because it contains DQ as well. I
know I am at my wits end here, but claiming that 
Quality is outside the MOQ is even further out.    

[ron]
It sounds to me that you are developing a sort of MOQ psychology, I
sense that a metaphysic which
Is based in an undefineable concept is basing it on a concept which is
then out side of it since
It defies its own description. Thus when Marsha refered to the taoist
metaphor that by focusing 
Too much in anything static you thereby are "mistaking the finger
pointing to the moon for the moon
Itself." in other words you must understand what the static patterns are
pointing to which is dynamic
And can never be defined thus the paradox and why some here do not
understand the complex structure
Created in it's undefinable name and liken it to dogma. Because to some
the whole damn thing is 
Subjective and not for mass consumption.



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/