[MD] for Ham, Arlo interjects

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[DM]
Sounds OK to me, but in MOQ terms we might phrase it that the individual is a
4th level source of DQ...

[Arlo]
Yeah, this to me still falls back on some S/O dichotomy that I don't like. The
source of Dynamic change comes about, on all the MOQ levels, from patterns on
that level responding to Quality. If we place the "individual" on the 4th
level, then what is the 3rd level source of DQ? "Individuals too"? Doesn't that
leave us saying that the MOQ is simply Inorganic-Biology-Individuals? 

Instead, I'd consider the "self-as-concept" to be an intellectual pattern that
is capable of responding to Quality (on the Intellectual level). This kind of
brings me back to the separation of cognition and meta-cognition (this is one
I've been pondering lately) as how it may underscore the social/intellectual
divide. Thus, cognizant beings (deriving cognizance from social activity) are
3rd level patterns capable of responding to Quality and fostering social
evolution, while "meta-cognizant constructs" (such as the "self") are what
exist as intellectual patterns and respond to Quality on this higher level.

The problem with the term "individual" is that it confuses these two, and has a
long history of baggage the MOQ's understanding distances itself from (such as
the "mind" originating from the social level).

Does this make sense?