Magnus, Moqtalk (Ian mentioned). 21 March
Bo before: > > 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. Magnus faking astonishment: > 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. The 4th. level is a static subset, isn't it natural that the MOQ has the "bird's eye view" while the said level has the worm's ditto? But - alas - I fear that your astonishment stems from the "intellect=thinking" fallacy, after all these years it's still going strong. And please no "your MoQ", it's THE 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. Right, from the 4th level's worm's view the said "images" are mental reflections of reality - and the manipulation thereof it calls thinking - but from MOQ (where values are everything) the 4th. level's value is the distinction between thoughts and what thoughts are about, between symbols and what's symbolized ...etc. > 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. Well, it's the "intellect in its SOM role to its 4th. Q-level role" inside-out turn that must be understood. The MOQ is revolution, do you think its just a continuation of SOM or more sloshing around of old tea? > 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. No way, SOM is part and parcel of the MOQ. Pirsig saw the necessity of incorporating it into the MOQ, I don't find his way very useful, the only way is to make it the 4th. static level (minus its M of course) everything indicates it. > 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. Not again. INTELLIGENCE (which is thinking all right) is the storing and retrieval of experience. The social level adopted this and applied it for own purpose and with language added it became the most powerful social tool. With the 4th. level's adapion of intelligence+language the static hierachy reached the S/O stage and things were split accordingly: The storage content became reflections or symbols, and the manipulation thereof became "thinking", while reality was seen as "out there". > As I said above, thinking without realizing your thoughts are separate > from what they're about, would fall between chairs. Yes, biology's and the society's "unconscious intelligence" fell between chairs before the SOL interpretation. I'm not able to recall when, but long ago the discussion was about smart animals (dolphins I think) and the "thinking interpretation" of the 4th level was unable to cope with this issue. If the 4th. level is out of the 3rd. than where is this biological thinking from? Maybe it was this that initiated the SOL, but it became clear that intellect isn't thinking as such, but a very limited kind of thinking: the S/O kind. > 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? No, not bad at all if you know/admit that it's society's roots you are approaching, but in them old days you sounded as if it was social patterns all the way into bee-hives and/or body celles. > 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. I said "escape biology" and in this I agree totally with Pirsig, but this we may discuss. > 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. The bio-socio transition was a dynamic leap, but its further development was inside the basic "social value", what's the idea with calling the levels static if it's dynamic? IMO Bo PS. You noticed Ian's suggestion of a settlement of our ten-year debate over the 4th level. He sees Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner as the - um - turning point, namely that the Greeks (SOM) spells the socio-intellect transition and the human society the bio-socio one. It's the only possible road ahead unless the MOQ will remain this "mystic" nonsense that only SA and Marsha see any value/use of. Why not go for it? There' plenty material for discussion material ahead of us. If Chris manages to arrange a MOQ conference in Lund this year it may be point from which the MOQ can begin to throw its weight around. The impossible 4th level has prevented any such advancement till now. 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/
