[MD] Fwd: Hierachy in MoQ

[MarshaV]

Will,

Okay, make it like "communication between nerves".


Marsha



At 01:04 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha,
>
>I am not seeking to throw out the intellectual patterns, I am trying to
>understand them in the context of the MoQ, and I put myself at the
>mercy of the forum for this.  My intent is not to be reductionist at all,
>but to gain a concept of the intellectual level as similar to the
>personal level, but different, with a consciousness of its own.
>
>Certainly, the question may shape the answer, but only in the sense
>that the answer uses the same language as the question.  The overall
>context may be universally useful in other platforms once it
>is translated.
>
>I agree that throwing up one's hands and saying it cannot be
>defined intellectually is no fun, and a dead end.
>
>Cheers,
>Willblake2
>
>On May 17, 2009, at 5:19:49 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>Greetings Will,
>
>Yes, but..., the answer reached is, more or less, guaranteed by the
>method (questions) asked. What question does a
>biochemist/neurochemist/biotechnologist/pharmacologist ask, and how
>might it shape the results? OR something like that...
>
>Honestly, I'm at the moment quite willing to throw out the
>hierarchical levels as 'Kill all intellectual patterns." Interesting
>place to visit, but why get stuck there?
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>At 01:22 PM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
> >Name correction, sorry.
> >Begin forwarded message:
> >From: markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com>
> >Subject: [MD] Heirachy in MoQ
> >Date: May 16, 2009 10:13:12 AM PDT
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >
> >Hi Arlo, Johncarl, Ron, others,
> >
> >This is perhaps a continuation of "Arlo's Rant and 3rd levels", I
> >have mutated the
> >title to remove the subjectiveness, and perhaps invite others.
> >
> >I am interested in learning more about the notion of hierarchy in MoQ, as it
> >may stimulate some thoughts for me about consciousness. We speak of the
> >inorganic, organic, organism and society as levels of complexity, as well as
> >of intent. Each of us are experiencing the organism level of consciousness.
> >
> >Being a biochemist/neurochemist/biotechnologist/pharmacologist by training
> >I approach things with this background. I have worked on mapping the
> >brain in the laboratory on a chemical basis, and can imagine the appearance
> >in consciousness as the communication between nerves. An additional
> >level of complexity arrises when different areas of the brain 
> serve different
> >functions of our consciousness. The next level would be the interaction
> >of our brain with the rest of the body. Then there is a spacial jump of
> >the interaction of humans together. We cannot experience this
> >consciousness, but can imagine it through extrapolation, in the same way
> >we can "imagine" multiple dimensions in space.
> >
> >So we are talking about complexities of interaction on a size basis. We can
> >go the other way, a nerve communicates with another nerve through a
> >chemical (language) to create a response on the next. There is also
> >a complex feedback system. Once this response is initiated, sodium
> >and potassium ions begin the travel short distances across membranes
> >and enable a variety of systems to propagate this across a length. Whether
> >or not this propagation continues, and where it goes depends on a
> >number of factors. We have the Ions (individuals), we have the channels
> >(stop lights), we have the overall state of the cell (household) and so on.
> >
> >The point is that the hierarchy we see goes both ways. Each system would
> >seem to have its own consciousness. What I believe we are calling the
> >abstract intellectual level, is where individuals interact in the
> >same way that nerves do. Our brains still interact in a more complex
> >way than society (at least for me, each nerve has more contacts than
> >I have contacts with others), but this is rapidly not becoming so due
> >to the internet (the new nerve system).
> >
> >Does this societal level have consciousness?
> >
> >
> >Anyway, I am taking up way too much of your time. This topic has
> >probably been dealt with at length. Such is the nature of
> >apprenticeship.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Willblake2
> >Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >Archives:
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
> >
> >Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >Archives:
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>.
>_____________
>
>The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
>interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
>static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
>
>.
>.
>
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/


.
_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.