[MD] Some historical perspective

Wed Oct 21 02:40:35 PDT 2009

Mark,

I have rewritten the below paragraphs to make them a little clearer, at least I tried.

---

You are quite correct, the moq does not assume there is a 'self' which manipulates static patterns of intellectual quality.  For me the MoQ defines Quality as experience, unpatterned experience(DQ) and patterned experience(spovs),  and in general, all spovs (patterned experience) is ever-changing, interrelated, interconnected, relative and conceptually constructed. But I was explaining the nature of Intellectual patterns, the process of intellectualizing, which misconceives a self (illusory) acting upon an independent entity (also an illusion).

Within the last few months I have come to the conclusion that, like Bo has been arguing, that Intellectual patterns are ALL of the subject/object type.  That is, Intellectual patterns are about the process that reifies concepts and symbols to be acted upon by a independent self.  The pronouns and nouns are a dead giveaway.  This is not from the MoQ point-of-view, but from a SOM point-of-view.  

I have also come to think that the Quality should have its own level because the difference between quality experience and subject/object thinking is so great that it represents a huge leap from the Intellectual Level, but even in this new Quality Level, DQ will remain indivisible, undefinable and unknowable and permeate all levels.  This Quality Level would be like a superposition of all that is knowable and all that is unknowable.  

Now all that I have just stated is intellectualizing, and full of illusions of subjects and objects.  But then all your talk of naked apes, nervous systems and emotions are also statements about reified concepts.  That fact that you are presenting them even if using a lower case i, makes it a subject/object type of philosophical statement.  And as for the rest of your statements, I have no idea what you are getting at with your 'delighting nervous system'.  

Marsha 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of mark_maxwell at talktalk.net
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 12:19 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

Hi Marsha,

Marsha: 
My definition is describing the functioning of the intellectual patterns. The self is assumed to be performing the manipulation. Of course it is a dualistic illusion. From the Quality point-of-view, there is unpatterned experience and patterned experience, and all static patterns of value are relational.

squonk: Thanks for this additional data.

IMO the moq does not assume there is a 'self' which manipulates static patterns of intellectual quality.

If static patterns of intellectual quality are isolated within their own realm i think it may therefore be assumed to be DQ which performs the manipulation of static patterns of intellectual quality.

I may have got this all wrong.

> 20Squonk: 
> This may beg the question: What delights in these relationships? 
> 
> And i think the moq would state that 'delight' is an emotional > response, 
> that is to say, it is biological in nature. It is therefore the, > 'Naked ape' 
> which delights in 'abstract concepts and symbols, and the rules > (grammar, 
> logic, mathematics) used for manipulating them'.

Marsha: 
Why don't you tell me. 

squonk: If delight is an emotional response, and if emotions are biological in nature, then a nervous system is required in order for emotions to be experienced. Naked apes have nervous systems, 'E = mc2' as 'abstract concepts and symbols, and the rules used for manipulating th
 em' does not.

The relationship between a delighting nervous system and E = mc2 bypasses social patterns (almost - another culture may replace these symbols with other culturally inherited ones, but their relationships would be the same: T " ~s¬ would have to have a one to one correlation with E = mc2)

IMO this description is not dualistic.

It does rely upon differentiation, of which dualism is a subset.

I may be wrong.

All the best,

squonk

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/