Steve, Chris, Moqtalk 11 Feb. Steve:
Chris earlier > > I am young, and compared to a lot of you I am very new to this, but > > I firmly believe that a fundamental mistake is taking place here. I > > feel that the major criticism of the SOL is mainly based on some > > vague impression that if rationality (SOM) is the 4th level that > > would diminish the Quality of the other levels - that to recognize > > that would be saying that the other levels aren't as "Good". It is > > not really so. They are static patterns of Good, all by themselves, > > and nothing diminishes that. The SOL makes a quite clear cut: I > > think this is what Bodvar means, it doesn't leave anything, It > > doesn't harm anything, it's a tool, to make the MOQ work as good as > > possible. I think It might do just that. Nothing is lost, but a lot > > is gained. I think it is as simple as that. I say, and do please > > challenge me on this, that most of the opposition to this comes from > > the misunderstanding of the SOL diminishing everything that is not > > within the 4th level. It doesn't really do that. This is not > > advocating the SOM, this is not going back to a preZMM > > understanding, it is just making the MOQ run more smoothly. (An aside from Bo): This is splendid, but I never saw any diminishing of the levels below an intellect defined as the S/O distinction might be behind the resistance to the SOL, but that may well be. Anyway, it is groundless. Steve: > The levels are levels of...of...levels of what?? They are better > thought of as types of patterns. We infer Value from patterns of > preferences... even a preference for rocks to fall down rather than > up. Bo: Why fake bewilderment? Chris says "They are static patterns of Good, all by themselves" and that's just what they are. Another thing, value is not something inferred, it starts from MOQ's DQ/SQ divide and the static levels, the first of which is the inorganic one. > The MOQ describes four types of patterns of value situated in an > evolutionary hierarchy: Inorganic patterns, biological patterns, > social patterns, and intellectual patterns. OK, but why this repetition of things that we all know? > The intellectual level contains all patterns of thought. Making > subjective/objective knowledge distinctions is just one of these > patterns of thought. Arguing that reality = Quality is another pattern > of thought. "Patterns of thought", my foot! What did people of old - long before the intellectual level - apply when they made up their social value-based explanation of existence, if not what intellect calls thinking? The MOQ (if that is what you call Reality=Quality) is NOT another intellectual pattern (if that is what you mean by "another pattern of thought") it is the metaphysics that takes over from the old SOM and relegates it the role of its own 4th. level. No doubt Chris will answer, but this is exasperating. I show Steve again and again how his intellect=thinking reasoning leads into absurdities, but he comes back completely unfazed. IMO 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/
