Hi Bo
Bo:
> I had said:
>>> We have all solemnly forsworn the Mind/Matter metaphysics
>>> where mind(=thoughts) is one half of reality, how come you
>>> accuse me of making some levels into thought levels? After all there
>>> is no such thing as thoughts in the MOQ (except as part of
>>> intellect's thought/matter value, IMO)
>
> Magnus:
>> Because your reasoning always start from some person or group of
>> persons thinking this, and thinking that.
>
> I ask in a serious "mode". Do you mean that my claim that
> animals have the neural capacity to - you know - "store &
> manipulate experience" makes the biological level a thought
> level?
No, I claim that the animals, because of their neural capacity to store,
manipulate and learn from experience, makes them enter the intellectual level.
(Not necessarily your version of the intellectual level though.)
> And likewise that my claim that ancient (social level)
> people had theories about existence (what we call myths) makes
> the social level a theoretical level?
I understand your claim and do see some merits with it. However, (didn't we
talk
about this last year before you took a summer break?) When you discuss the
social level, you look at it from within (my version of) the intellectual
level.
You mention myths above, and myths *can* be considered social patterns, and you
can discuss and reason about myths as if they were social patterns, but you
must
also keep in mind that they are are only ghosts/reflexions of social patterns.
Just the fact that myths are told to new generations, mouth to ear, makes them
intellectual patterns in my book. However, I do realize that they have a social
function within the human society in which they exist.
My version of the social level describes the real social level. The social
level
that an anthill is built upon. The glue that makes an anthill work, is very
much
like the glue of early human societies called myths. Both are social patterns,
but in the anthill, it's *only* social patterns. Different kinds of ants have
different physical form and perform different tasks for the society.
In a human society, myths are social patterns represented by intellectual
patterns. The myths decide which individuals perform the tasks required to make
the society work, not their physical form. Same same, but different.
> And that the Greek's search
> for "eternal principles" (the beginning of the 4th. level IMO)
> continues the mental/theoretical/thought evolution?
Same here, your view has it's merits. And I agree that this marks the point in
history when people broke free of the static social patterns of myths and
religion and started to think in intellectual terms.
However, this is still a similar ghost/reflexion as I described for the social
level above. It's not the real intellectual level that appeared here, that has
been around for eons. But it *is* the first time that such ghosts of
intellectual patterns have been used to rule a human society.
Note that these ghosts of social and intellectual patterns I talk about above
are not bad, or make the MoQ confused in any way. They make the MoQ more
coherent. We can discuss and reason about real social patterns *and* ghost
social patterns as if they were just that, social patterns. They obey the same
laws, regardless of whether they are real or ghosts. That goes for all kind of
patterns as well. And this is a very powerful aspect of the MoQ.
> Magnus ctd:
>> Sometimes they're in one mode and at other times they're in some other
>> mode.
>
> The idea is that we are all levels - isn't it so - thus when our body
> hurts our "mode" turns biological. And when the society we
> identify with is in question our "mode" turns social etc. what's
> wrong with this?
Nothing wrong. As long as we realize that the "mode" you're talking about is a
view from the intellectual level taking care of the needs of a lower level.
> Magnus:
>> When you're reasoning about reality, it seems you never give a second
>> thought about the physical world that existed before humans, and still
>> exists. Also, your version of the MoQ have no room for artificial
>> intelligence, so when such things pops up and starts thinking about
>> thinking, your MoQ is useless.
>
> Do I not consider the inorganic level? I don't have good examples
> of ourselves in inorganic "mode" except death, but I know well
> that it is existence's base and is infinitely older than life. Give me
> a break Magnus! And how do you know my opinion on Artificial
> Intelligence before we have discussed it? Speak about prejudice!
> And "your MOQ" (with tons of contempt) It's MOQ to the core,
> underpinned by most of Pirsig's work.
I'll do my very best to work with the contempt part, I realize it's not very
constructive, if you try your best to see my view, understand what I mean with
ghost patterns (perhaps find a better word for it), and not disregard it as an
elaborate excuse.
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/
