[MD] The MOQ and religions.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi John 

23 Dec. u wrote 

I had said 
> ..... But dear John I have railed against the intellect as
> awareness" (self-consciousness) which is SOM's "holy grail". Will
> return to that if you express some interest.. 

John:
> Ok, then, this is me expressing SOM interest.  It seems plain to me
> that SOM is the actual kindergarten of the 4th level.  It is the very
> most basic metaphysics possible, the "Metaphysics for Idiots" if you
> will. 

It's not expedient of me to split hairs over this even if I would have 
liked to say that SOM IS THE 4TH LEVEL. All of it, every last bit!!! 
There may be simpler and more advanced S/O patterns, the most 
advanced - Pirsig's of value as existence's base - is in the process of 
taking off on a purpose of its own.                

> Social intelligence, that magic self/other dichotomy that
> prevails upon the 3rd level patterns, reaches an "objective" point
> where it is fundamentally objectified as the fundament of being -
> self/other; subject/object metaphysics.  

This is good and even less useful of me to split hair over, but the 
self/other were perhaps not THE trigger - the true train of events is 
described in the ZAMM - but never mind.   

> Getting stuck here is a big mistake that amateur metaphysicians make in
> their youthful ignorance, and beginning metaphysical discussion groups
> get stuck on because that is the nature of lowest common denominators.

I'm afraid it's not about amateurs. After the Greeks had established  
the subject/object split it widened into a bottomless chasm - AKA SOM 
- and from than on even the most advanced thinkers took it for granted 
(as existence's "lowest common denominator") just as self-evident  as 
the 3rd. level took the god-run reality. Immanuel Kant no amateur 
exactly was SOM's final word and no one "cried foul" regarding SOM 
until this madman from Bozeman Montana.        

Bo before:
> > Speaking about the social-intellectual separating moment I remember
> > your dad Ken writing about some burial sites recently discovered
> > (how old I don't remember) and I believe his opinion was that THIS
> > spelt the bio.-socio. transition (and I agree).

> Ah well, I disagree there, as I've said before  I think the bio/social
> transition occurs in mammalian bonding patterns which create the
> self/other dichotomy and bond it to higher brain function through
> chemical/emotional reinforcement within that same brain. Thus
> according to this formulation, the 3rd level begins with Mammals and
> ends with SOM.  The 4th level begins with SOM, and doesn't have any
> end.

OK, there are many candiates for what biological pattern got too 
dynamic to be contained by the 2 nd. level and "took off on a purpose 
of its own" to form the 3rd.  I won't let this spoil our "shocking" 
agreement above.     

Bo before:
> > Scott-Peck's I haven't heard about, but his  Chaotic - Rule bound -
> > Agnostic - Mystic is the SQ levels in different words. Fantastic! It
> > proves that many thinkers have been on to the same notion. Remember
> > Scott Robert and his  Owen Barfield (the "participation scheme)?

> Umm, no.  Musta been before my time.

If you check the archives you'll find Scott on Barfield through many 
years around 2000 I guess.  

> Scott Peck was most famous for his Pop-psych book, The Road Less
> Traveled, but his most profound thinking, imo, came with two later
> books, A Different Drum and People of the Lie. For a really good
> example of his theory of individual spiritual development tho, the
> quickest and most enjoyable route is a Bill Murray movie, Groundhog
> Day.  I loved that movie when it came out in theaters, even to the
> extent of seeing it four times and paying full price - a rarity indeed
> for a guy who lives by the words, "Kids, we'll wait till it comes out
> on video." In the movie, the main character goes through the four
> stages Peck describes, almost to the letter.  It was so amazing to me
> that I was convinced there must be some connection between the writer
> of the movie and Peck's book.  But I've never seen any evidence so I
> guess it was just one of those "perennial philosophy" things whereby
> different minds stumble over the same truth.  If you haven't seen it,
> the main character, a local tv weatherman, gets trapped playing out the
> same day over and over and at first, after the initial denial, he
> decides to indulge in selfish pleasures - eating, having sex, stealing
> money and just generally following the stage one of character
> development of the narcissistic childishness. When this gets tiresome,
> he looks outside himself for a structured relationship and falls in
> love, attempting to win the heart of his co-worker by manipulation. 
> This doesn't work and he despairs, entering then into the third stage
> of Emptiness and even tries to kill himself, over and over. Finally, he
> comes to the realization and growth of that communal/mystic
> consciousness that Peck described, but Murray showed plainly. The movie
> is great, the book is great.  Both together are fantastic. Sorta like
> MoQ Discuss. 

Will try to find and buy that film. A bit more on your " ...  But I've never 
seen any evidence so I guess it was just one of those "perennial 
philosophy" things whereby different minds stumble over the same 
truth." Yes, there are such and I mentioned Owen Barfield's 
"participation" scheme that matches the social - intellectual - MOQ 
steps. However without the initial S/O - D/S (dynamic/static) in-out 
turning of the metaphysical "sock" all these "new" ideas are just 
stirrings within MIND - and because the mind/matter divide is SOM - 
SOM goes on unscathed. 

See you. 

Bodvar