> On Friday 28 March 2008 8:34 AM Dan writes to Chris: > > [Chris] > > > [Dan] > The electrical impulses in the brain are like the novel on the > computer disk. No matter what scientific instruments we use to measure the > impulses, we will never find a thought or an idea. We will never discover the > beauty of a sunset residing in those electrical impulses. > > I think the MOQ would say people define ideas and thoughts according > to culture. Ideas and thoughts do not arise from biology (elecctrical > impulses in the brain). Thoughts (intellectual patterns of value) > arise from social patterns of value. > >> >> Well, back to work. > > If you love what you do you'll never work a day in your life. If you > don't love what you're doing then why are you doing it? >
> Hi Dan and all, > > [Joe] > The eyeglasses that culture hands us are 'mechanical'. Is 'mechanical a useful > term for discussing cultural behavior? The nation is composed of individuals. > Are there mechanical nations, mechanical wars, > mechanical societies, mechanical individuals? How widespread? [Dan] Hi Joe, Good to hear from you! I am unsure just what you're getting at. Perhaps you might elaborate. On Monday 31 March 2008 Joe responds: Hi Dan [Joe] I am trying to distinguish a mechanical¹ act from a conscious¹ act in the following quote from Pirsig. Culture¹ is a huge word! > [Joe] > I want to add the other quote about CULTURE: 'The CULTURE in which we > live, hands us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret experience > with, and the concept of the primacy of subjects and objects is built > right into these glasses.' [Dan] How does this tie in with mechanical nations, mechanical wars, etc.? [Joe] Culture hands me a set of glasses to interpret experience. I interpret my experience through these glasses. My experience is pre-interpreted and mechanical. Is there Conscious part of me? Do I also consciously look through those same glasses? Yes! The Conscious part of me interprets DQ. This is undefined and underlies the mechanical part of experience. How can I be so divided? When does it start? E.g. at the age of two I ran for my life at the roar of a motorcycle. At 75 I barely lift a finger. My reaction to the noise which started as a conscious flight for life is now mechanical! The conscious part has been put to sleep as overkill. I now react mechanically. > [Joe] > I may be overstressing how culture is mechanical, but we are steeped > in culture and our thought may be mechanical. Is DQ conscious and SQ > mechanical? [Dan] I think it depends on how the terms are defined (or not) and in what context. [Joe] Does the definition of a term depend on the perception of value to create the term, or only social acceptance? If I accept the social level as the level of proprietary awareness (consciousness) then IMO definition belongs to the intellectual level. Two elements are necessary for definition ³This is!² Definition¹ is an intellectual term, and culture¹ is a social term. Static Culture helps me forget the value of DQ and dream on. I can live mechanically asleep as only a social entity not striving for awareness. In a MOQ meta-level the intellectual level requires more scrutiny or it becomes ³culture² and mechanical dogma. > > > [Joe previously 18 March to David M] > > IMO 'actions become unconscious'. As I read that I think mechanical. > The MECHANICAL takes the place of the CONSCIOUS! What happens to the > manifestation of what can only be the CONSCIOUS? Your example says a > MECHANICAL sign. I don't think so. The MECHANICAL sign triggers a > MECHANICAL action in the memory of a CONSCIOUS action, sleepwalking! I > do not want to categorize DQ as conscious, and SQ as mechanical > without a big deal in the metaphysics of evolution! Sleepwalking! > > [Joe] > Am I asleep to 99.99% of my actions derived from culture? Is this what > Persig is saying about culture? [Dan] We're "asleep" to social patterns of value to the extent we don't recognize them as such... subject-object metaphysicss, for example. It's easy to fall into the trap of seeing subjects and objects as primary but the MOQ tells us they're not. Quality doesn't reside in the subject or the object. [Joe] I would also argue that by habit 99% of my activity is mechanical. I do not remember it. I call it sleepwalking¹. >[Joe] > Does DQ/SQ wake me up or do I have to > further delineate a Conscious/Mechanical metaphysics for culture? [Dan] Knowledge sets one free, or so I've heard it said >[Joe] > Does AI stand head and shoulders above CI conscious intelligence? Am I > even capable of approaching CI? [Dan] You must be addressing this to someone else... at least I hope you are since I have no idea what you mean. [Joe] I am impressed with the value of AI. Memory is so important. Is DQ, like evolution, an important value that can only be apprehended by CI? Is conscious intelligence a value worth pursuing for an individual? E.g. is there a MOQ meta-level? Are the terms like DQ/SQ only meaningful from a conscious apprehension of value, a MOQ meta level? Why try to envision a static/mechanical (manifest), dynamic/conscious (order) evolution? I am musing here, Dan, and I apologize for drifting away, but it seems like a proper question! Thank you so much for writing, Dan Right back at you! Joe On 3/30/08 10:02 AM, "Dan Glover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > _________________________________________________________________ > In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger. > http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_r > ealtime_042008 > 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/ 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/
