[MD] MOQ Levels

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Magnus! Bo!

 It seems that this is now a little inter-Nordic discussion here - not a bad 
thing I'd say: Brödrafolkens Väl, trots allt =)

Magnus wrote:
>The problem with your SOLAQI is the same problem I've been talking to Ron 
>about.
>It assumes our reality consists of thoughts alone. Thoughts of eating, 
>thoughts
>of conspiring and then the grand thoughts of intellectual abstraction.

I wonder over this. I don't see how the interpretation that the SOM is the 
forth level says that our reality consists of thoughts alone. Indeed, the 
thoughts, are not really thoughts as such I would say, not in the whole of 
it, but only a response do DQ - a response that gains its character by all 
the levels that builds up the static patterns of value that perceives DQ. 
The fact that SOM says that it IS thoughts, and that they are separate from 
everything else is then perhaps in it self an interpretation that is built 
upon four levels of static patterns of value. If we remove the 4th level, 
the remaining three levels can still, as much as anything respond to DQ, and 
it does. "Thinking" is there, but not there, since it is a construction of 
the 4th level, at least the way we "think about thinking" so to speak. But 
the functions of the biological brain is still there, it's capacity to 
respond to DQ the same as ever. How it interprets this DQ depends on what 
level is the dominant one however. If this is so, that would suggest that 
the 4th level could be the SOM, since it brings about another way to 
interpret the DQ that is around, that is totally different from the way that 
Biological or Social patterns wound respond to it. The term Thought is 
invented, and a new way of responding to DQ comes about.

I have written this down though this is far from a cemented view of mine. I 
am about to write a essay that my examinatior finds to somewhat outlandish, 
in that I have the mind to go back and examine a few Roman or Greek texts, 
in an appropriate time (Cicero's texts was the first that came to mind) to 
try to se if it can be determined that the view of the self, and the 
thoughts of the self, as separate from the world was around, so to speak - 
indeed, if the SOM distinction had won ground.


>When you claim that SOLAQI would constitute a 4th level, you say that only 
>those
>thoughts that are about SOM belongs to the 4th level, right? And at the 
>same
>time you dismiss other thoughts to lower levels. *That's* my problem with 
>SOLAQI.

>There's no metaphysical (fundamental) difference between different types of
>thoughts. Thoughts all end up in the same box, regardless of what they're 
>about.
>Otherwise, if you do as you do, a stone and a thought of that stone would 
>both
>end up in the same box. And that's just plain wrong.

Ah, well, as said, there is no thoughts then really, just the notion of 
thoughts (the 4th level) - and when that distinction, that the thoughts are 
separate, breaks though, that would constitute a new level I'd say.. Perhaps 
anyway, but one thing that occurs to me it that this may not be able to be 
accredited to the Greeks, maybe it can, but also it might me much older. 
That may be a question of history though - something I cannot resist going 
into most of the time =)

---
Humbly IMO

Chris
---