[quote] Do you think that a cat can think? "To think" carries tons of SOM. What you ask is really "are cats self-aware"? Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter where the "self-awareness" term - not belong - but was CREATED.
My own observations: Some cats can certainly "think". Some people think. It seems to hinge on what the definition of "thinking" is in each persons personal dictionary. Attempts to create Absolute definitions about "IQ" or "thinking" create VERY slippery slopes for anyone with that much of confidence about ALL cats or ALL people. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:11 PM Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 7 > Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: The education of Peter Corteen (David M) > 2. Re: subject/object: pragmatism ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 3. Re: Is/is not (David M) > 4. Re: top down fallacy (Krimel) > 5. Re: Socrates: animate and inanimate (Krimel) > 6. Re: Does Quality exist? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 7. Re: Does Quality exist? (Krimel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:54:19 -0000 > From: "David M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] The education of Peter Corteen > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > does the need to act and decide not create awareness? > > DM > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:49 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] The education of Peter Corteen > > >> No, at least in the sense that it doesn't move. But does something >> require >> action to be self-aware? I am unfamiliar (not in Socrates' sense) of >> MoQ's >> idea of self-awareness. >> >> On Nov 26, 2007 5:41 AM, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> is a pencil active? >>> >>> DM >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:06 AM >>> Subject: Re: [MD] The education of Peter Corteen >>> >>> >>> > Is a pencil 'self-aware'? >>> > >>> > On Nov 25, 2007 7:34 AM, Akshay Peshwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> [quote] >>> >> > Do you think that a cat can think? >>> >> >>> >> "To think" carries tons of SOM. What you ask is really "are cats >>> >> self-aware"? Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part >>> >> of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter >>> >> where the "self-awareness" term - not belong - but was >>> >> CREATED. >>> >> >>> >> [/quote] >>> >> >>> >> Consciousness (or self-awareness) is nothing but Dynamic Quality, >>> >> hence >>> >> it >>> >> is the very essence of all "things" while at the same time existing >>> >> beyond >>> >> it. We are spiritual beings tied to a mortal framework of body and >>> mind. >>> >> >>> >> Akshay >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 24/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Hi Peter >>> >> > >>> >> > On 23 Nov. you wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > on one hand your apparent unwavering confidence in your >>> understanding >>> >> > > of the MoQ is persuasive and makes me think I need to understand >>> your >>> >> > > point of view more; on the other hand in your posts your use of >>> >> > > common >>> >> > > words with your own specialised meaning, your poor phraseology, >>> your >>> >> > > sometimes patronising responses and that you frequently miss out >>> >> > > conjunctions in your explanations and use unusual punctuation all >>> do >>> >> > > not help your cause. >>> >> > >>> >> > But English is not my first language. In the old days when there >>> >> > were other Europeans around this site I used to find them easier >>> >> > to understand than the "natives". But no sore feelings, I >>> >> > appreciate your honesty. >>> >> > >>> >> > > It could be my weak brain that's the snag and if I were more >>> familiar >>> >> > > with ZAMM and LILA I would be able to decipher better what you >>> mean; >>> >> > > so I hope you don't take those comments too negatively, I say >>> >> > > them >>> in >>> >> > > the hope that they can some how lead me to be able to understand >>> you >>> >> > > better. >>> >> > >>> >> > > I'm in the process of reading your SOLAQI update but in the >>> meantime >>> >> > > I'd like to ask you a couple of, for me, important questions: >>> >> > >>> >> > GOOD! >>> >> > >>> >> > > Do you think that a cat can think? >>> >> > >>> >> > "To think" carries tons of SOM. What you ask is really "are cats >>> >> > self-aware"? Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part >>> >> > of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the >>> >> > latter >>> >> > where the "self-awareness" term - not belong - but was >>> >> > CREATED. >>> >> > >>> >> > If you can stand some more on "intelligence"? It is a biological >>> >> > pattern by way of the neural complexity called brain that makes >>> >> > higher organisms able to store former experience (Read and >>> >> > Write memory) and retrieve it - play around with it in imaginary >>> >> > scenarios - what makes them able to learn from experience >>> >> > included seeing other perform an act. At the bio.(cat) level this >>> >> > does not include a self or language, particularly not the internal >>> >> > kind we call "thinking". As the social level rose on top of biology >>> it >>> >> > adopted this pattern and because the biological pattern which >>> >> > spawned "society" were Homo Sapiens, brain and intelligence >>> >> > were enormous. If language was part of the social level from the >>> >> > start or developed is a big question, the Neanderthals certainly >>> >> > lived in family and tribal groups, but did not have language. >>> >> > Anyway, with language came the silent form called "thinking", so >>> >> > did names and a group identity that transcended the animal >>> >> > range. Kingdoms and other "doms" arose. (this is a leap of tens >>> >> > of thousands of years course) I find this passage from ZAMM >>> >> > catching this reality so well. >>> >> > >>> >> > One must first get over the idea that the time span >>> >> > between the last caveman and the first Greek >>> >> > philosophers was short. The absence of any history for >>> >> > this period sometimes gives this illusion. But before the >>> >> > Greek philosophers arrived on the scene, for a period of >>> >> > at least five times all our recorded history since the Greek >>> >> > philosophers, there existed civilizations in an advanced >>> >> > state of development. They had villages and cities, >>> >> > vehicles, houses, marketplaces, bounded fields, >>> >> > agricultural implements and domestic 381 animals, and >>> >> > led a life quite as rich and varied as that in most rural >>> >> > areas of the world today. And like people in those areas >>> >> > today they saw no reason to write it all down, or if they >>> >> > did, they wrote it on materials that have never been >>> >> > found. Thus we know nothing about them. The ``Dark >>> >> > Ages'' were merely the resumption of a natural way of life >>> >> > that had been momentarily interrupted by the Greeks. >>> >> > >>> >> > This also shows that - to Phaedrus - "The Greeks" are the pivot >>> >> > point that changed everything , in ZAMM they meant the coming >>> >> > of SOM, in LILA it ought to have been the emergence of 4th. >>> >> > level. But more on INTELLECT in another post. >>> >> > >>> >> > > Do you think quality can manifest itself in any way without the >>> >> > > inorganic? >>> >> > >>> >> > The quick answer is "no", but it requires some explanation. At >>> >> > first Pirsig put great emphasize on a QUALITY outside the MOQ >>> >> > (that creates an infinite regress) He later "recanted" and said >>> >> > that >>> >> > the Quality he speaks about in ZAMM is the DQ of the MOQ. In >>> >> > that case the basic postulate is Reality=DQ/SQ (which isn't >>> >> > different from the Reality=Quality in any other respect than >>> >> > removing the Quality outside/ahead of the MOQ) thus Quality's >>> >> > first manifestation was/is the inorganic level. >>> >> > >>> >> > Everything in my opinion of course, but I can't add this at the end >>> >> > of each sentence. >>> >> > >>> >> > Bo >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > 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 only thing that separates us from the animals is...well, the >>> > truth >>> is >>> > nothing separates us from the animals." >>> > 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 only thing that separates us from the animals is...well, the truth >> is >> nothing separates us from the animals." >> 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/ >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 09:04:32 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] subject/object: pragmatism > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >Name anything that we do that is not about manipulating >> >probabilities and patterns to remove uncertainty from our future. > > The arts. > > Platt > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:18:08 -0000 > From: "David M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Is/is not > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi all > > Raymond Tallis in Philsophy Now states: > > "Perhaps the most dramatic and possibly even the most influential thought > in > philosophy is Parmenides' assertion that the universe is an unchanging, > undifferentiated unity. He arrived at this conclusion by an argument so > simple that if you blink, you miss it. What-is-not, he says, is not. Since > what-is-not does not exist, it cannot act either as a womb of that which > is > coming to be, or a tomb for that which has ceased to be. Things cannot > therefore come into being, nor pass away, for they cannot arise out of or > pass into what-is-not. Nor can there be space between objects (since empty > space is what-is-not), and so the differentiation of Being into beings in > the plural is impossible." > > > > Is the concept of DQ a refutation of this? > > > > David M > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:42:43 -0500 > From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] top down fallacy > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > [gav] > (am i helping at all or should i give up?) > > [Krimel] > Depends on what you are trying to do. I understand what you are saying. I > don't understand why you would pursue or put much stock in it. > > It is a style of thinking that I found very hard to shake free of > personally. Perhaps you have to actually watch a few on the fringe crash > and > burn before you start to get it. Von Danekin, Castaneda, Velikovsky, > pyramid > power, crystals, troops of scruffy gurus, Hal Lindsey, apricot pits, Uri > Geller, and on and on. Eventually after enough of them crash and burn you > start to smell the smoke at a distance. > > As David Hume says of Skepticism: > > "Nothing, therefore, can be more contrary than such a philosophy to the > supine indolence of the mind, its rash arrogance, its lofty pretensions, > and > its superstitious credulity. Every passion is mortified by it, except the > love of truth; and that passion never is, nor can be, carried to too high > a > degree." > > He goes on to speculate on why this proves to be so unpopular. > > "By flattering no irregular passion, it gains few partisans: By opposing > so > many vices and follies, it raises to itself abundance of enemies, who > stigmatize it as libertine, profane, and irreligious." > > I can only imagine your annoyance and dismissal of Hume's assessment. But > let me end with this from Wiki: > > "Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions > according > to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence > or > rationality." > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:49:09 -0500 > From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Socrates: animate and inanimate > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > "He begins by briefly proving the immortality of the soul. A soul is > always > in motion and as a self-mover has no beginning. A self-mover is itself the > source of everything else that moves. So, by the same token, it cannot be > destroyed. Bodily objects moved from the outside have no soul, while those > that move from within have a soul. Moving from within, all souls are > self-movers, and hence their immortality is necessary." > -Socrates on the soul > > DM: Funny thing is, of course, that it is hard to see anything as not > in fact as both self-moving and open to being moved from other > forces. Rocks might just sit there from a macro-perspective but > when looked at on a micro-scale they are full of activity and > whirling particles, that only happen to sit in one place not > flying off because the forces/movements involved are conflicting > and in balance. > > [Krimel] > Or change the time scale and watch rocks roll around, break apart, erode, > crumble, melt and reform. > > Zoom in, Zoom out, refocus. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:49:42 +0100 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] Does Quality exist? > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Hi Matt (the stealthy) > > On 1 Dec. you wrote: > > [Bo] >> > >The big difference is that no religion has the level >> > >arrangement (perhaps material, biological and social) but NOT the >> > >intellectual, at least not (in my interpretation) as the >> > >subject/object distinction. By having this as its topmost value >> > >Quality's GOOD is beyond religion's GOD, in its vocabulary religion >> > >belongs at the social level of goodness. > > Matt: >> Are you saying that religion doesn't promote intellectual >> thinking/goodness? Are you saying that Quality is greater than the idea >> of God because of Pirsig's (somewhat dogmatic/meaningless) Quality >> hierarchy? > > You naturally overlooked the "at least in my ..." clause and ask a bit > incredulous if religion(s) don't promote thinking (if "goodness" is an > exclamation or the slash means "or"?) which shows the difficulty of > removing the "thinking" definition from the 4th. level. Again and again > one starts from square one as newbies arrive, dead set on their > preconceived wisdom. > > When your premises in addition (to misunderstaning the 4th. level) is > that the static hierarchy is "dogmatic and meaningless" no wonder. But > listen: The idea of God is also the idea of Zews or any other deity - as > is that of the moon and stars as deities - and in a MOQ context this is > social value (for a value it is) but compared to it intellect is a higher > value and deems the idea of god(s) to be superstition. This it does > because intellect is a blind to being a value level (as the rest of the > levels are) only from the MOQ the value context is seen. > >> Quality will always win at its own play ground; it is a common case in >> philsophy, especially pseudo philosophy. Just because Pirsig says >> religion is at the social rather than the intellectual level is a >> stupid reason to think so. You're saying that Quality's Good is beyond >> religion's God because the MoQ/Pirsig says so, an idiodic reason for >> agreeing with something. > > I like your blunt style, but am impervious to such arguments. The proof > of the MOQ is the enormous explanatory power - compared to the > SOM - which is due to the level system. The initial Quality=Reality (all > is value) sentence is a postulate and can't be proved. I find Pirsig's > many demonstrations futile, the proof is the new world order and its > ensuing clarity, but it - first - requires an open mind and then a > different understanding of the 4th. level, > > Bo > > PS: > If you wrote this: > >> Bo, this should be responded to by someone who knows more about the MoQ >> than me (or Marsha, for that matter). > > your mind can't be all closed. I try to act the MOQ scholar, but what do > I get? > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:10:49 -0500 > From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Does Quality exist? > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > [Bo] > I like your blunt style, but am impervious to such arguments. The proof > of the MOQ is the enormous explanatory power - compared to the > SOM - which is due to the level system. > > [Krimel] > Or one can regard the MoQ a way to construct and evaluate levels. It shows > us that whatever levels or point of view we adopt we will see similar > patterns of static and dynamic quality at work. > > [Bo] > The initial Quality=Reality (all is value) sentence is a postulate and > can't > be proved. I find Pirsig's many demonstrations futile, the proof is the > new > world order and its ensuing clarity, but it - first - requires an open > mind > and then a different understanding of the 4th. Level. > > [Krimel] > Calling the Tao Quality was a serious mislabeling. Equating it with > reality > is a violation of the spirit as well as the intent of leaving the Tao > undefined. Illusions on illusions of illusions of Value. > > Note to Matt: Beware the Level Headed for they have lost The Way. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 7 > ****************************************** > 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/
