Hi Bo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Magnus
>
> On 22 April you wrote:
>
>> MoQ2 is the (possible) metaphysics that the MoQ one day will create to
>> cure the inconsistencies of MoQ, and MoQ3 is ...
>
> What inconsistencies? Can't think of one except the intellectual
> level, but it is now more or less brought back to the original
> SOM=intellect.
I was peeking into a possible future, where someone might find problems with
the
MoQ and solve them by creating an updated MoQ. I don't understand what's so
difficult to understand about that.
>> 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 formulate your own questions and answer them as well. A
> safe exercise.
Feel free to provide other answers. But in this case, the exercise was not
about
the answers but to show flaws in your's (and Chris's) reasoning about A not
being able to create A.
>> 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.
>
> I agree about the lower level being blind to the upper, but all
> levels are manifest (how to say it?) by the human race (at least
> by most people) and when our focus is at the biological level it's
> not at the social level and when at the social it's not at intellect
> ..etc.
It sounds as if you're siding with Ham? Are humans the all important, sole
source of quality and reality? Are you saying that reality would work
differently if humans were not around? That the rules of the MoQ no longer
would
be valid?
>> SOM *can* reason about the MoQ, but that
>> shouldn't be possible if it was a completely new level.
>
> The MOQ is no level, it's the system itself, but it has level-like
> relationship with the intellectual level. When the Quality Idea hit
> it could not be tolerated by intellect. Phaedrus was "killed" by its
> immune system.
Sure, but as I've said above (or tried to convey to you), that would leave lots
of similar scientific breakthroughs in the same position as the MoQ.
Relativity,
quantum mechanics, etc.
To continue answering my own questions: Intellect *can* understand (i.e. value)
the MoQ, relativity and quantum mechanics, therefore they are *not* new levels.
>> 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.
>
> When democracy (intellect-dominated society) was threatened by
> fascism-nazism it momentarily abolished its freedoms and rights,
> but when the war was won the intellectual patterns returned. Like
> now when so many are worried that USA by Guantanamo ...etc.
> is slippery-sloping into tyranny, but when it's over all democratic
> patterns will return.
Yes? And?
Sounds pretty much like an adrenaline rush in a person when fazed with danger.
Same same, but different.
>> 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.
>
> By SOM you hopefully mean what became the 4th. level.
Of course... not. :)
> However, it's only possible to reason about the SOM from a MOQ
> perspective, this is so because both SOM and the 4th. level are
> MOQ creations.
No. The *words* SOM and *4th level* are MoQ creations. But the word is only the
intellectual representation of the real thing. The SOM was born 2000 years ago,
although nobody noticed it until Pirsig.
It seems you're just pretending to be some intellectual philosopher that
refuses
to acknowledge that anything you don't know about, exists. I think, therefore I
am. If the tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it didn't fall. etc.
That's obsolete according to the MoQ.
>> 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.
>
> "L word" ??
Love
>>> 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.
>
> It's the Newton argument. P. of ZAMM said that the Gravity
> explanation came to be with Newton, thus the Quality explanation
> came to be with Pirsig. No difficulties with that?
No problem, as long as you at the same time acknowledge that gravity was around
even before the "Gravity explanation" came about, and that Quality was around
before Pirsig formulated the "Quality explanation".
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/
