Hi Bo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So, for starters, what *is* that image?
>
> From the 4th. level seen they are mental reflections of reality, but
> from the MOQ seen the ability to manipulate sense experience is
> a biological pattern, while - again - intellect's value is that of
> seeing the retrieval as mental and the senses impressions as
> real.
What? Why is it seen differently from the 4:th level and the MoQ? It
sounds as if the 4:th isn't even a part of your MoQ.
Also, you first say that the image is a mental reflection of reality,
and I agree with that. But then you keep claiming that intellect's
*value* is that of seeing the difference.
So, what is the difference between stating that "a pattern is a 4:th
level pattern", and "the value of intellect is that of seeing the
difference...". That sounds like your 4:th level is (again) divided into
two parts.
Bo, the reason I want to start with more basic patterns to see how the
levels evolved is because it's much easier to see what is what in those
simple setups. If you start involving humans and other complex patterns,
it gets too complicated to see what's what, and you can interpret it
however you like. With more basic building blocks, you can't do that.
However, once you get the basics straight, you can use that to also move
up to more complex things. It's nothing strange about that. Scientists
do it all the time.
> Bo before:
>>> The inversion that befalls intellect from its SOM role to its MOQ
>>> role is crucial. To SOM "intellect" is thinking (the "manipulation"
>>> part of the MOS only) while MOQ's 4th level's value is the S/O
>>> distinction, in this case symbols as different from what they
>>> symbolize.
>
> Magnus now
>> This sounds as if the SOM intellect is one level and your 4th level is
>> some other level. Or is the SOM intellect part of a lower level? In
>> which case, which one?
>
> Well, it's the said "extreme makeover" that befalls "intellect" from
> its SOM role to its Q-level one. SOM's intellect is "thinking" itself
> while the intellectual level is the power of seeing thinking as
> different from what one thinks about. If you can stand more
> detail, this is just what the social level DID NOT observe. Its
> many rituals are about "thinking" as one with - able to change -
> experience.
Would you stop involving SOM in this? We're talking about the MoQ, and
if you can't discuss intellect without involving SOM, then it seems your
theory depends on SOM for some reason. And that wouldn't be a good
dependency.
If I understood that, then "thinking" itself has no place in your MoQ.
And this leaves a pretty big chunk of reality outside the metaphysics
you claim does the best job at explaining our reality. That's not cool.
> But I fear yours is like Pirsig's "symbol manipulation as intellect",
> namely that it is the manipulation itself that's the great feat and
> that the symbols were other levels' patterns. But intellect's value
> is the symbol/what's symbolized DISTINCTION!!!!!!!!!
To paraphrase:
No!!!!!!!!!
>> But why do you have to insist on adding the S/O division into this? We
>> already have a definition of the 4:th level, but if you add another
>> constraint, some patterns will no longer fit in that new level, and
>> will fall between the chairs. Where would they belong?
>
> You too!? Show me what (preferable) intellectual patterns that fall
> between chairs.
As I said above, thinking without realizing your thoughts are separate
from what they're about, would fall between chairs.
> Before the MOQ I despised metaphysics because they took the
> SOM for granted. Not that I knew any SOM, still felt it a waste of
> time. Then with ZAMM's pointing to a SOM the ground suddenly
> shifted under my feet, but if you want to make the MOQ into
> THAT kind of idle "angels on needlepoint". Thanks but no thanks.
It's not as if I'm aiming to be alone on a needlepoint, on the contrary,
I'm trying to convince everyone to join me. But if the alternative is
your's and others' fuzzy interpretation of what a metaphysics should be,
i.e. a theory constructed with the sole purpose of just explaining what
can already be explained today (and in your case, much less than that),
then I'm not interested.
>> ..... I mean, why on earth would you want to draw a line based on
>> *size* for any level? Exactly *where* in the MoQ primer does it say
>> anything about SIZE??? If you start adding stuff like that later on
>> just because you can't overcome a few obstacles along the way, why
>> bother trying to define (or for that matter *use*) a metaphysics at
>> all?
>
> Who speaks of size? It's about "roots". Pirsig speaks of intellect
> having forgotten its social roots, but this goes for all levels, your
> once specialty of the pursuing the social level soon ended in
> biology and following intellect backwards will end in society
Well, my pursuing of the social level ended below what you consider to
be the border between levels 2-3. But that only means that the old level
border was arbitrary, it didn't hold up to scrutiny.
*But* (and will you please read this this time, I've said it many times
before). Moving the level boundaries downward, does *not*, and I repeat
*NOT*, invalidate any old reasoning about that level. We can still
discuss societies in the form of human societies and wolf packs. The
only difference is that we have more societies for comparison. We simply
get to know *more* about the social level. Is that a *bad* thing?
>> We would have a definition of the social level like. A society is a
>> bunch of biological entities that values living together, larger than
>> 10cm3. I mean, look how stupid it sounds.
>
> You think you are smart? ;-) Social value is not about "living
> together", communities are a fallout from a more basic value that
> began as an escape from biology's "eat and proliferate" existence
> to a higher level where these basic (instincts in intellect's lingo)
> are brought under control (see how obsessed religion is with sex
> and food) and the organism is seen as part of a greater context
> and cause that became "God" ....ok no more, but thanks all the
> same
I beg to differ, that's not how the social level began, to fight
biological urges. It began because it was better to fight the dangers of
reality together than to fight individually. This later evolved into
different means for society to control its parts. I mean, it was society
who created the problem in the first place. Society gave the organisms
the spare time, and some of them abused that extra time, which in turn
forced society to control it.
Seen in this light, you can start to appreciate the dynamic advancement
of the social level instead of just seeing it as something keeping
organisms static. Higher levels are supposed to be more dynamic than
lower, but your social level does exactly the opposite.
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/
