[MD] CBC Ideas: Homo (Sapiens) Neanderthalensis & etc.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Marsha and all Xmas survivors.

26 Dec.  2008 at 6:17, MarshaV wrote:

I must admit I did not listen, some "RealPlayer" had to be bought.

> Seemed to me the point of the program was that we don't know about the
> Neanderthals.  Science thought one thing.  Then, new evidence was
> found, and now then tend to think something quite different.  In fact,
> it was stated that the real story would probably never be known. 
> Ahhhh. There it is.

Yepp, that's good old science, it never takes anything for granted, 
EXCEPT there being an objective answer at the bottom of things ... 
even if it's never known..

> My interest in the MOQ has taken a different direction.  I'm 
> interested in the nature of patterns.  The nature of what is 
> mistakenly thought of as an independent self.  All patterns, for me,
> have turned out to be interrelated, interconnected, ever-changing
> concepts.  No independent things.  

Yes, that's the very idea, the levels are static and thus not independent 
- the only eternal configuration is the DQ/SQ one - but they can be 
treated as independent to a certain depth with great benefit. 

> Only conceptual ideas (static patterns of value) overlaid onto dynamic
> quality.  For me, ALL spovs are conceptual patterns.  Categorizing
> patterns as inorganic, biological, social and intellectual is a helpful
> tool, but not the important aspect of this new point-of-view. 

Here's where I balk. MOQ's configuration isn't DQ/CONCEPTS. 
Concepts as less real than the reality they conceptualize is intellect 
(S/O). Or turned round: The reality that we by language try to 
conceptualize is science's objective truth. This is the highest STATIC 
good yet subordinated the overall DQ/SQ configuration  

> Science often seems very arrogant and stupid.  What thrilled me about
> this program was an acknowledgement that what was known has changed. 
> Suddenly something so small seems very hopeful.

This is a subtle point. There are scientists who acknowledge a "higher 
reality"  like Einstein, but if this higher reality is classical religious 
(Semitic") belief there is trouble for instance harmonizing creation in 
seven days with evolution  But there's no conflict between the Quality 
Reality and scientists working at its 4th. level. Yes, many scientific 
disciplines  may come up with interesting knowledge, but physics has 
IMO reached the region where dynamics "shines through".    

> Did you happen to listen to the interview with Eric Fischl?   Do you
> think people are only capable of changing their point-of-view if they
> are suffering?  And it is for the artist to show them and make them
> experience their suffering?  This seems to be a serious question.  Or
> maybe not  Some would say to just paint.  -   Maybe you think change
> happens when it becomes rational to do so?

As said no, I did not listen. I have another computer at my studio place 
and will try it there. About suffering, you mean under torture? ;-) 
Seriously, hardship makes us find new ways and means, but "change 
our point of view" ... hardly. I just read about the Libanese journalist 
Samir Kassir who wrote a book that in my language is called "The 
Arabic World's tragedy" that advocates an Arabic (or lets call a spade 
...) Islamic) World Renaissance like the Western one ... and naturally 
he was killed. This is the least thing the Islamists want. From our 
elevated  MOQ stance we know that this spelt the Social/Intellectual 
transition, and the level below don't recognize any higher value, it 
looks like destruction of own value and fight it with all their might 
...what we know as terrorism. 

Bo