Denis, Bo and LS,
Language?
LANGUAGE!
L A N G U A G E !!!!
this was the missing piece in my puzzle! It's incredible: I didn't see
it, and I use it every time.
I 've read Denis' post one, two, three times and I was ... without words!
I understand why Denis writes:
> Wow. Cool down Denis.
and it's really smart DLT's answer:
> You nailed it! End of thread! Break's over, go back to your school work.
but... End of thread?
Denis ended with two questions, so maybe we must go on.
Let's read again some part of Denis' post, and try to answer.
> One recurring problem we seem to see in those discussions is the nature
> of the levels. [...]
> .... as Pirsig pointed
> out, each level interacts with the others.
>
> It doesn't mean that the levels are ontological "things", that then
> interact with one another.
>
> No, it means that whenever you try to describe something, you leave
> something out. That the reality we try to describe is made of
> interlocking patterns, which complexities are beyond anyone's abilities
> to completely unravel (that's the positivists' illusion). No perfect
> metaphysics.
>
I agree. No perfect metaphysics.
I think MOQ requires this little effort to us, western people: we
must live with a continual doubt about truth, opinion, ... about everything.
Doubts are necessary if you want to be Dynamic.
> [...] the IntPoVs I'm about
> to present are *tricks* (good ones I hope) to get things done (like
> convincing you I'm right ;),
I found in these words something like I 've said in my post: at the
Intellectual level the competition is often to obtain Agreement.
> I want to say that as Bo points out,
> societies aren't composed of individuals any more than Q-Intellect is
> composed of societies. Societies are composed of behaviours, which are
> biological, and which are a support for new patterns, social patterns.
>
> In this way, just as DNA molecules carry biological informations, giving
> birth to the bio level, the repetitive patterns of behaviour carry
> social information, then giving birth to societies.
> [...] The reason I cannot think of SOM as being equal to the Q-Intellect
is
> that it is already too perfect, too developped to be a good candidate
> for the post. So I've got to find a good (even if it's a little loosely
> defined) one. Language seems to be such a candidate for many people.
> [...]
> human language is inherently dynamic, able to mutate and to
> evolve ON ITS OWN, while it is static with animals, only evolving when
> the animals themselves evolve.
If I understand ... the birth of intellectual level was evoked by societies,
to become more competitive. Individuals begun to use a simple language, for
example in an initial form of sound signals, to communicate dangers, or
attack strategies. In that phase this simple "animal language" was only a
"strange", dynamic social pattern; but language is ... alive. In one
particular animal, MAN, evolved to words, opinions, philosophies... and to
cave pictures, arts, science, technology... in one word: Intellect.
Then all these .. adult intellectual patterns, begun two different wars: on
one
side to get free, the clash against society; on the other side, to obtain
Agreement, each one against the others.
This vision makes me remember the beginning of JOHN'S GOSPEL:
"In principio era il Verbo" (sorry, in Italian!). The Italian word "Verbo",
is your English "Word". If I remember well, in greek original version of
Gospel "Verbo" was LOGOS. LoGos, LanGuage... maybe the meaning is just
that Language was the beginning of ... Intellectual level? Sorry, I'm
running away.
In my first post of this month I made a mistake talking about school. I've
said that school is the "conjunction" between social and intellectual,
meaning that social level creates intellectual level through school .... but
the idea of Language is ... better.
On the contrary, school is a social pattern created within societies to
CONTROL Intellect. At school the first thing you learn is the Language of
your Nation.
Schools usually force students to learn one only language,
eliminating all dialects, or foreign Languages. Ah! the Church of Reason!
In fact...
> In other words, what we have here is the
> emergence of a new level, which isn't social (when the Indians were
> forced to learn English they didn't start acting like Europeans).
> It does seem promising for the Intellectual level, doesn't it ?
> But then, language isn't the same as the Intellectual level. It would be
> like saying that DNA *is* the Biological level. It isn't. DNA is a
> molecule. Combined with RNA and other molecules, and contained within a
> cell it is able to replicate itself and evolve, it's the biological
> information carrier (pattern-carrier if you want), but it's not
> Q-Biology.
>
English colonizers forced Indians to English Language
just trying to control their culture: if Language is the DNA of culture,
they tried ... a genetic manipulation!.
> If language conveys meaning, then it logically follows that meaning is
> dynamic with humans,
> What is meaning ? Meaning is value. Intellectual value -> Intellectual
> Quality.
> What drives intellectual research ? The search for meaning of course !
> The meaning of existence, the meaning of our lives
Denis, you are a Genius!
> [...] words are static pattern of Intellectual Quality, and
> whenever we experience Dynamic Quality, we try to put it in a static
> pattern that we can then experience again. So we try to see the
> correlations with the static patterns we already have (the process known
> as "definition"),
I agree. "Define" means not only to give a meaning to something, but also to
give a "border" to something (it's Latin: "Finis" = end, border). When you
(subject) define something (object), you lose what's out of that border,
that is the connection of the object with universe. Definition is a typical
process of SOM. That's why the use of S/O split is more useful...it's more
effective. Example: when we say the Moon is round we give a border to the
Moon, we "define" it. So we can calculate it's circumference. But the Moon
is ... the Moon. Its form is unique in Universe. If you avoid definition you
are closer to the real ... but reality isn't reachable. You can't calculate
the exact circumference of a "real object", only of a "defined object".
> Still, it looks good, no ? What do you think ? Good trick ?
>
What I think? I can only THANK you!
> OK, let's say that language is the machine code of the Q-Intellect. It
> conveys information (static intellectual value), has the possibility to
> replicate itself, and to evolve in response to Dynamic Quality.
>
> So what is the Q-Intellect ? Try this : it is the greater patterns in
> which static intellectual patterns organize themselves. Hierarchies,
> relations, similarities, opposites, functions. A metaphysics. We define
> the ontology (Ideas and Appearances, Substance and Forms, four classes
> of Static Patterns of Value, Spirits and Elements, Yin and Yang), then
> the relationships between things.
>
> What is SOM ? A metaphysics with great Dynamic potential. It created
> guidelines to access high-Quality intellectual patterns, defining
> Quality as Good Intellectual patterns : Truth.
>
> So, the battle between the Sophists and Plato was already on the
> Intellectual level, it was a battle between two different world-views,
> two metaphysics, which *are* intellectual patterns.
>
> The Q-Intellect as I see it now is the ecosystem in which competing
> metaphysics vie for dominance, just as different species vie for
> resources in Earth biosphere. The most dynamic ones make it to the top,
> the others don't.
>
I want to joke (sorry, BO!)
Maybe the main point is to persuade Bo to this conclusion. But I begin to
understand him: if SOM is "only" an intPoV, and MOQ is "only" another one,
what will happen when the fifth level will rise? Our intellectual pattern,
our metaphysics, our MOQ, will combat it , and we will be on the wrong
side????
> The real metaphysics of the Sophists is now lost to us, except for its
> central tenet : Arete. Its greatest tool, rhetoric (its replicative
> system, we could say) lost its battle with dialectics.
Finally we return to the beginning: the Greeks.
I also noticed that we have lost the real thought of Sophists, that's a
fact. In my post I hazarded a phrase for wich I've been immediately rebuked
by Bo:
"We cannot know if the Sophists, or Socrat, were the defenders of the MOQ "
Obviously I know it's impossible to say that anyone before 1991 A.D.
defended MOQ: I wanted only to provoke some doubt about all this agreement
about the Sophists. Sophists are more.. likeable , especially because they
are the "loser".
I think that really Sophists were not a "group": they did not have a
structured, complete metaphisics. Sophist means "someone who knows"
(Sophia=Knowledge). Today we could say they had the "Know How". Their
speciality was selling " ready speeches". They were writers, lawyers, free
thinkers, usually in competition each to the others.
We know only what Plato said about them, so we can argue that "Sophistic
thought" has been created by Plato.....
However, now I've clear why Greece was the leading society at that time in
Europe. All the greek cities had a special place: the "Agora" (Latin:
Forum). It was more than a square in the middle of the city: it was a free
open space in which it was possible to meet people, make business, discuss
politics, philosophies.
That freedom evoked the birth of many different philosophies, and of
Democracy. Schools at that time were something like "discussion groups". It
was really a Dynamic age, at Intellectual Level!
But soon society became afraid of all that freedom, schools were organized
to "define" and control thoughts. It became easier to defeat what wasn't
"good" for society. And Agoras were changed to ... squares.
I try to answer to the two questions left by Denis.
> Perhaps its
> ontology wasn't good enough, didn't include enough of the world. Perhaps
> it was too centered on the social level and lost because SOM had a
> better grip upon the intellectual level. Who knows ?
>
I go on thinking that S/O split was more effective. Only through it, it has
been possible to create science and technology, and solve some of the
eternal problem of man. The Giant was only a baby but it was able to help
SOM.
> Now MOQ has a chance to dethrone it. Its grip on all four levels is the
> best one I've found yet. So what do you think ?
>
I think that the chance of MOQ is connected to the situation of ancient
Greece. Now we have a new form of Agora, the NET, and new forms of school,
groups like MOQ.ORG. If we look at the present situation, the NET is a big
risk for the Giant. And the Giant is afraid. When MOQ can compete on
intellectual level is very attractive. The problem is that the most people
have difficulty to leave for some moment the lower levels.
p.s.
Yesterday I bought a motorcycle!
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
