[MD] What is SOM?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bo -- 

> Dismissing the levels is next to impossible when discussing
> the MOQ, but these are the basic things so perhaps for a little while.....
>
> At this point we are at terrifying heights, yet, we must come here to
> see the Intellect/MOQ relationship (AKA SOM/MOQ) You seem to
> believe that intellect and its patterns can be detracted and the knower
> (AKA mind) will remain behind, but that won't happen because
> intellect (the level) is the subject/object (AKA mind/matter) distinction
> itself, thus the knowing subject is part and parcel of intellect's
> structure. From below a certain altitude your view looks self-evident,
> but we are not here to ruminate what's commonly acknowledged.

We can't dismiss it, either, inasmuch as all knowledge is S-O derived.  SOM 
is the universal platform for all philosophical discussion.  To pretend 
otherwise is to invite confusion.

You say that "the knowing subject is part and parcel of intellect's 
structure," as if self-awareness was structured.  Certainly intellection is 
a function of awareness and it involves cerebral (organic, biological) 
processing of sensory information.  But awareness is "structured" only by 
the objects of its experience or thoughts and by its individuation as the 
proprietary being-aware of reality.

> You can repeat that the real me is not intellect, but your "intellect" is
> not the static intellectual level as I define it. The MOQ postulates that
> existence before the 4th level - before SOM - had no such things as
> thoughts, consciousness, awareness, mind, soul ...etc. they all arrived
> with that level*) (not at once but gradually). In pre-intellectual (social
> level) writings you won't find references to any the said phenomena,
> not even "essence", they are all "sound and fury".
>
> *) This is the "Newton example" over again (from memory) "people
> just shrug, gravity where there for Newton to discover"

It is this alleged historical development of intellect that I find 
unacceptable. There is anthropological evidence that the brain grew in mass 
over the centuries, but intellect is not a lobe or region of this organ. 
Neither is conceptual or logical ability.  Where does this "fourth level" 
come from, then?  Is Intellect "always there", waiting for man to evolve a 
brain complex enough to recognize it?  Or, is Quality itself an evolving 
system?

> So, you have introduced Value as corresponding to Essence?
> If you now postulate that Essence is dynamic/static divided and
> that there are 4 static essence levels we have "lift-off" ...   ;-()

No, Bo, I don't need four "essence levels", and such a division would 
invalidate the concept of unified Essence.  Value does not equate to 
Essence.  Value is a sensible attribute of Essence which is realized only by 
a cognizant agent (being-aware) that stands apart from the absolute source.

> That it is only humans who make up theories, write books and
> discusses them is elementary Dr Priday, so a Metaphysics of
> Humanity" would have worked, so would one of Consciousness or
> Essence or whatever one regards as simply being. Most obvious is it
> that everything is conveyed by language so a MOL would have been
> the ultimate one, all would work if Dynamic/Static-divided with static
> levels. But this much said I still see "Quality" as the best, the mother
> of them all.

What would be the fundamental element in a Metaphysics of Humanity?  It 
would have to be the individual, which is why we'll never see a metyaphysics 
of humanity.  The same is true of Consciousness -- all consciousness is 
proprietary  . to the self.  We do have a metaphysics of Being, however.  It 
was formulated by Hegel, Heidegger, and Sartre in the last century, and is 
called Existentialism.  As far as the Metaphysics of Quality is concerned, 
it's a strange "mother", indeed, whose very existence depends on her 
children's sensibility.

> Well, I have no great expectations of our arriving at some agreement,
> but by all means, you serve as the "enemy" who unites the quarrelling
> moqists.

I'll concede that any agreement will have to be outside the hierarchy of 
levels.  I'm viewed as an "enemy" by the MoQists only because I can't accept 
a human value as the fundamental reality, especially a value that must be 
broken into patterns in order to be realized.  But I remain intrigued by 
your concept of "intellect" as the value of the S/O divide.  Were you open 
to changing this referent to "awareness" or "consciousness", I believe some 
progress might be possible.

Thanks for responding, Bo.

Respectfully,
Ham