Hi Ron
> Magnus:
> In all of the above (and both your following posts), you're assuming the
> old rag
> "I think, therefore I am", right?
>
> Ron:
> Wha? That's what you are telling me, thinking is proprietary to human
> Existence, I tend to disagree.
No, *I'm* not telling you that, but from your posts, I thought *you* were. (Not
proprietary though, more like an underlying assumption to all philosophy).
Again, I'm not suggesting that this is the way it is, just that your posts
before this suggested it.
> When you suggest we start at the bottom and work up, you're
> Assuming there is a bottom in a complex system. Side stepping the issue
> by imposing a "I think, therefore I am", view on my statements does not
> Address that point.
Yes, I think there is a bottom, or rather, I think there is a better (closer to
the bottom) place to start.
Also, I'm not quite sure which *point* you referred to above? Do you mean
there's no bottom?
> Magnus:
> And if you do that, of course you can only discuss our reality/universe
> from the
> perspective of human thinking. If you force the MoQ into that same
> limited glass
> cage, the only thing you can really do is discuss different types of
> thoughts.
>
> Ron:
> I don't see any way NOT to keep this in mind when we enter into these
> discussions. The MOQ IS in that same limited glass cage. What it alludes
> to
> Is the development of individual personal experience, else MOQ falls to
> the same SOM trap of assuming it is more than a concept. The Quality
> awareness
> It arrives at is another story.
I'm getting a Deja vu here, haven't we been here before? Don't you subscribe to
the Metaphysics aspect of the MoQ? If you don't, then what's left? A oQ?
And what trap would that be? What would happen to the MoQ if it assumes it's
the
final and complete description of the universe?
> Magnus:
> But the MoQ throws that old rag on the dump, it's *not* about dissecting
> the
> human mind into different types of thoughts. It says we *can* assume
> that there
> *is* a reality outside of our minds. The tree *does* fall in the forest
> even if
> nobody hears it, I assure you! (and so does the MoQ).
>
> Ron:
> No argument, but how those events are perceived and understood is all
> Interpretation.
Unless you have a metaphysics like the MoQ in which to interpret them.
> Magnus:
> You said that "human beings are found in societies". Yes, and? Is that
> supposed
> to prove that intellect relies on a society?
>
> Ron:
> Well, yes. I posit that very thing. I'll even go so far as to say that
> Intellect is what defines humans (homo sapiens) and their societies.
> As I said, to reduce intellect to biology commits reductive fallacy.
Again, I did never suggest reducing the 4th level to the 2nd.
The fact that I think individual (and isolated) humans still have intellect is
a
completely other matter.
> Ron:
> You contradict yourself, you say: "societies are way too complex to use
> for any pragmatic analysis" then follow up with " We should
> start at the bottom and work our way upward",
> so, just where is the bottom in this complex system? This is my point,
> it doesn't have one. Pirsig describes his level structure in a holistic
> way concerning the human condition and how it relates to reality.
Of course there's a bottom (or as I said, a better place to start which is
closer to the bottom). We have to start by going back in time and see how the
levels developed before humans, before animals, before life. All the way back
to
the beginning of the universe, and perhaps then some.
> Then you state:" And if you do that, of course you can only discuss our
> reality/universe from the perspective of human thinking."
>
> Well Magnus, if your argument is that intellect is proprietary
> Of the human condition then it only stands to reason that humans
> Can ever only discuss our reality/universe from the perspective
> of human thinking.
> Isn't objective assumption one of the first rags thrown on the dump?
I don't think intellect is proprietary of the human condition. Where did you
get
that from? Read my essay in the moq.org forum. Actually, that's one of the (if
not *the*) most important reasons why I wrote it in the first place. To make
the
MoQ accept artificial intelligence.
Magnus
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/
