Hi Bo
>> Magnus wrote:
>>> The problem with your SOLAQI is the same problem I've been talking to
>>> Ron about. It assumes our reality consists of thoughts alone.
>>> Thoughts of eating, thoughts of conspiring and then the grand
>>> thoughts of intellectual abstraction.
>
>> I wonder over this. I don't see how the interpretation that the SOM is
>> the forth level says that our reality consists of thoughts alone.
>
> Thanks Chris, Magnus' post shocked me a bit. How is it possible to
> misunderstand so grossly.
How else should I interpret it? You distinguish between SOM (rational)
thoughts,
and social thoughts, and then you have the biological (dirty) thoughts. This is
how your view of the 3 top levels comes through to me. Feel free to explain
yourself further if it's not correct.
>> Indeed, the thoughts, are not really thoughts as such I would say, not
>> in the whole of it, but only a response do DQ - a response that gains
>> its character by all the levels that builds up the static patterns of
>> value that perceives DQ.
>
> Yes, well everything is responses to DQ, but I believed Magnus agreed
> on the biological origin of what intellect call "thinking", and, like you
> say, gained by each levels that have adopted this capacity. But only at
> the intellectual level did the (value of) the split between "thinking/what's
> thoughts are about" occur.
"Biological origin"? You know very well that I consider the human brain to be
much more than just biological. In fact, the brain itself has no such senses we
normally connect with biology such as smell, sight, hearing, etc. The brain are
just fed the signals sent by those senses and then manipulates those signals in
a very sophisticated (read level 4:ish) manner.
Coming from you, that term "biological origin" sounds like you're trying to
side-step the fact that individual humans are able to "think" even when
disconnected from their native society.
>> The fact that SOM says that it IS thoughts, and that they are separate
>> from everything else is then perhaps in it self an interpretation that
>> is built upon four levels of static patterns of value. If we remove the
>> 4th level, the remaining three levels can still, as much as anything
>> respond to DQ, and it does. "Thinking" is there, but not there, since
>> it is a construction of the 4th level, at least the way we "think about
>> thinking" so to speak.
>
> Exactly, most encouraging that one single person at last see this
> context.
If we remove level 4, no thinking is left. Not a single thought, no dreams,
nothing that represents anything else can exist without level 4.
Isn't that a more fundamental split between the 3:rd and 4:th levels than
"thinking" vs. "thinking about thinking"?
And if the 4:th level is "thinking about thinking", what then is "thinking
about
thinking about thinking"? And "thinking about thinking about thinking about
thinking"?
If they're not levels 5 and 6, what makes "thinking about thinking" so much
more
special than "thinking about thinking about thinking"?
>>> When you claim that SOLAQI would constitute a 4th level, you say that
>>> only those thoughts that are about SOM belongs to the 4th level,
>>> right? And at the same time you dismiss other thoughts to lower
>>> levels. *That's* my problem with SOLAQI.
>
> For Magnus:
> "Thoughts about SOM"!!?? I say that SOM (or intellect) is the value of
> distinguishing between thoughts and what thoughts are about. When
> an intelligent animal faces a task/problem it surely brings out images
> from its memory and creates imaginary situations "if so is done, such
> will be the result" (wordless of course), but it's we - from intellect who
> says that this is imaginary or takes place at an abstract plane, the
> animal does not know any S/O distinction. Human beings of the social
> level - who adopted this biological capability - did perhaps know
> dreams from the wake state, but there was no S/O distinction. Dreams
> was regarded as visions of the future, and what we call thoughts
> weren't ABOUT any objective reality, but could change it ...you see the
> idea?.
Yes, I see your idea. And I see that you're still staring at your cow, trying
to
find out why you can't trigger a spark of intelligence in it. Your answer to
that is your version of the 4:th level, but I simply disagree.
Why do I disagree? Because the rest of the universe doesn't fit with that
version of the 4:th level. It only serves the purpose to explain why you can't
talk to cows and make them appreciate the beauty of life.
> This also shows the impossibility of Pirsig's "manipulation of symbols"
> definition of intellect. The said animal surely manipulated symbols but
> this does not make them "intellectual" nor are the social level. Only
> with the 4th level did the distinction between symbols and what they
> symbolize dawn upon mankind. THAT'S INTELLECT!!!
Perhaps intellect, but it's not a new level.
> Magnus ctd:
>>> There's no metaphysical (fundamental) difference between different
>>> types of thoughts. Thoughts all end up in the same box, regardless of
>>> what they're about. Otherwise, if you do as you do, a stone and a
>>> thought of that stone would both end up in the same box. And that's
>>> just plain wrong.
>
> This is the result of your initial misunderstanding, from what I write
> above you will see. At least Chris does (below)
So, describe a stone in terms of the levels. And then a thought of a stone.
What
are they?
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/
