On Saturday 5 April 2008 11:48 PM Magnus writes to Steve:
> But back to my point about 7...
>>>>>>>> 7. Static dominance. Because each lower level is unable to
>>>>>>>> evaluate the other levels, it considers itself to be the
>>>>>>>> most moral and strives to dominate the others.
>
> Even if you say that level means a pattern that is part of the level
> this doesn't work. Rocks think that they are most moral? Plants and
> dogs think that they are most moral?
Yes, what's wrong with that? They *think* they are most moral (even if
think is not the right word for rocks or plants), but that doesn't mean
they are most moral in a bigger perspective, i.e. from a higher level.
From their point of view, i.e. the lower level, they are the most moral
since they can't react to quality events of higher levels.
This realization also means that we, intellectual thinking beings,
should be aware of the fact that intellect would not intellectually be
able to grasp the workings of any higher level even if we stared it in
the eye. (Which, BTW, is just one reason why Bo's SOL is not a level of
its own).
Magnus
Hi Magnus, Steve and all,
As I read Pirsig¹s take on evolution, The integrity of a lower level is
intact as long as a higher level exists. Without the higher level DQ is a
predator. Is Bo¹s SOL a description of a predator in action?
Joe
On 4/5/08 11:48 PM, "Magnus Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Steve
>
> Steve Peterson wrote:
>> Hi Magnus,
>>
>>>>>>>>> 6. Static awareness. Each higher level evolved from the
>>>>>>>>> lower level but has become a discrete level. From the point
>>>>>>>>> of view of any level it is only possible to evaluate
>>>>>>>>> phenomena at that level.
>>>
>>> And to exemplify on Chris' answer, a biological pattern can only
>>> evaluate other biological patterns. It's only because biological
>>> patterns depends on (consists of) inorganic patterns, that a biological
>>> *thing* can also evaluate inorganic patterns, such as gravity. I.e. the
>>> level 1 patterns are evaluating the level 1 events, the level 2
>>> patterns
>>> are evaluating the level 2 events, etc.
>>
>> Steve:
>> Okay, but it just seems obvious and uninteresting to say that rocks
>> don't have intellectual preferences.
>
> Pretty obvious yes, but something in the opposite direction is not as
> obvious, such as:
>
> Intellect don't feed biological urges.
> Intellect are not affected by gravity.
> An apple tastes the same in zero-gravity.
> etc...
>
>>
>>>>>>>>> 7. Static dominance. Because each lower level is unable to
>>>>>>>>> evaluate the other levels, it considers itself to be the
>>>>>>>>> most moral and strives to dominate the others.
>>>> Steve: This ammounts to the ZAMM koan, is the quality in the subject
>>>> or the object?
>>> Exactly, and how did Phaedrus solve it? We just mentioned this in the
>>> "Value and the individual" thread today:
>>>
>>> [Magnus]
>>> Every single quality event involves two objects. From each object's
>>> point of view, *it* is the subject valuing the other.
>>
>> Steve:
>> In Lila he abandons the Quality Event between a subject and an object
>> in favor of his DQ and patterns of value model. We don't need to
>> identify one thing as a subject and another as an object. Any thing we
>> talk about is known in its thingness as a patterns of preferences.
>
> Abandons?? No no no. He just complements it. The quality event is still
> very intact. Were did you get that from? I can't find any reference to
> him abandoning the QE in Lila?
>
> He can't abandon the QE, becuase it was the QE that solved the ZAMM
> koan. How would the model as described in Lila solve that *without* the QE?
>
>> But back to my point about 7...
>>>>>>>>> 7. Static dominance. Because each lower level is unable to
>>>>>>>>> evaluate the other levels, it considers itself to be the
>>>>>>>>> most moral and strives to dominate the others.
>>
>> Even if you say that level means a pattern that is part of the level
>> this doesn't work. Rocks think that they are most moral? Plants and
>> dogs think that they are most moral?
>
> Yes, what's wrong with that? They *think* they are most moral (even if
> think is not the right word for rocks or plants), but that doesn't mean
> they are most moral in a bigger perspective, i.e. from a higher level.
> From their point of view, i.e. the lower level, they are the most moral
> since they can't react to quality events of higher levels.
>
> This realization also means that we, intellectual thinking beings,
> should be aware of the fact that intellect would not intellectually be
> able to grasp the workings of any higher level even if we stared it in
> the eye. (Which, BTW, is just one reason why Bo's SOL is not a level of
> its own).
>
> 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/
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/
