Hi Magnus
11 Feb. you wrote:
> 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.
Bo:
The issue was that I pointed to brain's capacity to (you know the
whole argument so from now I just call it) "manipulate
experience" and that the next levels in turn adopted this capacity,
but only with intellect did the said manipulation become "mental"
in contrast to the real world. I need not add anything to Chris'
pointing out that it is intellect that deems everything below itself
as inferior, from the MOQ seen they are VALUABLE E levels!
May I add that the MOQ reject's Intellect's S/O as reality's
deepest slice and introduces the Dynamic/Static one, thus there
is no thought world in contrast to a real world. Thus your
accustion of me making all levels "thought levels" is nil and void.
Magnus:
> "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.
Bo:
Biology in a MOQ context is the value of transforming inorganic
patterns (among a milion other things) into sense experience.
Please step out of your arch-somish stance of regarding brain as
hardware where some software does the said transformation. It's
most telling that you put "4:ish" in brackets, because this is SOM
to the core.
> 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 point of this I have problems interpreting.
> 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.
The "cow" alludes to my QE essay, but that was young Bo
speculating from SOM's premises. From MOQ's premises all
S/O-induced enigmas dissolves, the cow (animals) "appreciate
biological values" and so do we when focus is at that level. We
are "bovine" when our biological needs are satisfied ;-)
Magnus:
> So, describe a stone in terms of the levels. And then a thought of a
> stone. What are they?
"In terms of the levels" means from MOQ's perspective because
its only there the Quality context is seen, the static levels knows
nothing about being value levels. Intellect created the S/O
dichotomy (in this case the "thought/what thoughts are about")
thus a "thought of a stone" only exists at intellect. I don't really
see the point of this, but you will be good to explain.
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/
