[MD] The MOQ difference

[John Carl]

Mark points out=>

When a child is born, it has no
> concept of other.  In fact it cannot distinguish itself from its mother for
> a while.  When a child is born, all it has is Will.


Right Mark.  Although to be precise, the abstract entity of "child" is a
social label applied to a pattern of value that we cognizers of values slap
on its butt (shortly after smacking it's behind to help introduce it to
air)  This "Will" you speak of, is a purely  instinctual urge to get its
biological needs met.  Then, through the process of getting its needs met by
mothering, it learns it's social place and all about otherness.





> This then becomes more
> All Self and No Other.  What this means is that during the early stages of
> development, a human has NO SOM. I'll spare you the other stages.
>
> I like this because I think there is a crucial distinction here, between
4th level intellectual patterns concerning the fundamental nature of the
subject/object metaphysical stance, and the self-other realization which
occurs at the social level, and is the basis for much of our knowing.

subject/object realization rather than subject/object metaphysical belief.
The first is a social pattern and the second is about the social pattern -
an absolutization on an intellectual level, of a very basic,
lowest-common-denominator of realization of self-existence.   The
"kindergarten" of the 4th level - SOM.

Mark:



> Now, how can we even say this is a possibility?  Well, I am no
> psychologist,
> but you will find this kind of thing in such journals.  A more convincing
> example of the absence of SOM in early childhood can be found in certain
> accounts of autistic people (please don't get too caught up in the autistic
> label stuff, it is only misleading).  There are people, labeled as autistic
> (for lack of a better term) who are capable of living part time in an
> autistic world of pure sense, and then capable of communicating with the
> rest of us as to what that type of consciousness is like in our own logical
> terms.  Now, I don't want to seem kind of fringe on this kind of thing.  If
> you are interested in the applications of SOM and Quality to autism, then I
> suggest you read Autism: The Lost Art of Sensing by Donna Williams.  She
> can
> explain it much better than I, because she lives it.  And, no, it is not
> fruitcake stuff, but it does take an open mind.
>


John:

Sounds interesting.  There's a lot to learn about ourselves through aberrant
extremes of brain-behavior, imo.

Mark:


> If you accept the paragraph above, I can go on to say that SOM develops
> during childhood, for most of us.


John:

Well yes.  Everything does!  But more than when, I'm interested in the why.
Innate or programmed? I'd say it's programmed in by culture.  scarey
thought- especially in light of an increasingly aberrant cultural pattern,
to be sure.

Mark:


>  In fact some people can vividly remember
> when they became aware (so to speak).  Carl Jung speaks about this (I
> forget
> where).  The tipping point is communication.  Because of communication we
> need to label things, you know, nouns, verbs.  Try to differentiate pacing,
> from walking, from loping, from jogging, from meandering... you know what I
> mean.



John:

Yes.  I do.  Communication is the tipping point, indeed.  A signifier, a
signified and a sign.

Mark:

This simplification of our perception into quantified things is
> necessary because our brains need to condense reality into little
> simplified
> bits.


John:

Exactly.  Thinking itself is dependent upon meaning, a narrate, a story.
Every word contains a story and stories are nothing but collections of
words.  Which is fundamental?

word, dude.

Mark:


> As you know, there were people who were obsessed with this such as
> Aristotle.  You can appreciate that by having to simplify into words, much
> of the original experience is lost.



John:

Ellul butts in his ugly french head and disagrees, "non, non" he shakes his
head sadly.

What he means is that meaning and experience arise out of this fundamental
relationship - the interaction between self and other IS experience itself,
and these are not two distinct entities, but co-creative, a co-dependent
arising, as you pointed out to start this "moq difference".  Another good
name than Quality for this co-dependence, is communication - a word.  Not so
much a "good" word, as the goodness OF words- the cognizant reflection of
self and other that it seems only humans do, so it's hard to judge whether
they do it well or not.


Mark:



> Suffice it to say that words do improve
> memory so that if you attach some awareness to a word, it is easier to
> recall that awareness through this word.  It is sometimes proposed that we
> think in words.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  It is only words
> when communication is involved, it is only SOM when words are involved.
>  Most of our consciousness is wordless
>
>

John:

Well, speak for yourself there.  Mine's all in words.  Everything I think
about, I do so verbally.  All feelings are conceptualized, often they are
conceptualized poorly, or misunderstood and transferred - in other words,
the verbal creations which we use to story things in memory and access,
assign as words to a feeling that are completely "wrong" or mis-applied.
And by this we mean "unconscious" or "subconscious" or whatever.  But just
because the verbally processed information about our ideas or feelings is
mis-applied, they are there, testimony to a certain existence - a reality.
And if there is no word, no concept, no realization at all, of any
differentiation, then there's no reality.  Where there is no word, there is
no reality.

Mark:


> Now, I could go on, but I will leave it at that for now.  So, again, I am
> not circumventing anything in fact it would appear that you are.  You
> provide vague notions of this cognitive agent of awareness by wrapping it
> in
> cosmic separation from something else.  Sure, water becomes gas when it
> gets
> hot, and thus separates, but how does such a notion create cognitive
> awareness?  You are missing a lot of pieces in between. I would be more
> than
> happy to have you present to me how personal consciousness arrises.
>
>
John:  It could also be, that he's just trying to get your goat, Mark.  He
can have mine, anytime.  I've learned a lot from arguing with Ham.  I'm most
grateful to the old goat.



Mark:


> So, I have no intention of disinheriting the subjective sense, in fact I am
> embracing it.  It is your pseudo logical encapsulation of this sense into
> an
> ineffable construct which creates the disinheritance.  What I see so far is
> much hand-waving.
>
> All in good fun,
> Mark
>
>
>
Stay calm.  Be brave.  Wait for the signs.

John Charles Peirce