Hi Bo
>> No static pattern can produce anything really new by itself. DQ is
>> always required. On the other hand DQ can create anything.
>
> Each level sprang from the lower level urged on by a relentless
> dynamic pull. This is MOQ's explanation of why things evolve,
> but the sequence is established, no level can be skipped.
>
>> It's not SOM that has created the MoQ, which will then create MoQ2, and
>> then MoQ3, etc. DQ has created all of them.
>
> It's very much SOM that created the MOQ in the sense of its
> inconsistencies being the cause of young P's "lateral drift" and
> eventually his Quality Quest. What you mean by a MOQ 2 and 3
> I don't understand?
MoQ2 is the (possible) metaphysics that the MoQ one day will create to
cure the inconsistencies of MoQ, and MoQ3 is ...
Will all these future MoQ versions be a level of their own?
Using the same line of arguments, one could argue that democracy is a
new social level because it's so much better than older types of
societies, and that multi-cell animals is a new biological level, etc. etc.
You have simply gotten the whole concept of levels all wrong. New levels
shouldn't be discernible by lower levels, they grow orthogonally out
from all the lower levels to create a new dimension. But when you claim
that the MoQ is a new level grown out of SOM, that's not the case. SOM
*can* reason about the MoQ, but that shouldn't be possible if it was a
completely new level. The same thing with single vs multi-cell animals,
they can smell, taste and eat eachother, and are therefore not different
levels. And democracy vs tyranny, they can engage in war, therefore not
different levels.
SOM is, using the same logic, *not* a different level from the MoQ,
because it's very possible to reason about the MoQ from a SOM
perspective and vice versa. Just because Ham is incapable of
understanding it doesn't mean it's not possible.
The only thing I've entertained as a possible 5th level is the L word.
It's hopelessly immune to reason and it dominates it as it pleases, and
on top of that, it doesn't feel very immoral.
>> So, as SA said, we don't need any meta-level. Just DQ.
>
> Would DQ be around hadn't the MOQ been? Don't get me wrong.
> Inside the MOQ the DQ/SQ configuration is from eternity - like
> Gravity is inside Newton's Physics - but many of you folks keep
> insisting that the MOQ is some arbitrary division of a Quality from
> eternity. F.ex. that SOM was a "moq" .... OK, this I will direct to
> Arlo because he raised that issue.
I can't say I understood any of that, but perhaps Arlo did.
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/
