Magnus. Thu. Apr. 24: Bo before: > > 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.
Magnus: > 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? Not in Ham's sense, but you can't well deny that humankind are all levels, or how to say it. I guess the correct way to see things is that the biological level brought about the Homo Sapiens who became the biological "carbon" for the social development. > > 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. You may not agree with me that MOQ=SOM, nor that MOQ is out of SOM, but my conclusion is that (by this logic) MOQ is out of intellect. All levels spawned one ambiguous pattern that became the "carbon" for the next level. The patterns you mention all undermined SOM and at first I tended to regard modern physics as intellect's "carbon". I have however not closed that case. > To continue answering my own questions: Intellect *can* understand (i.e. > value) the MoQ, relativity and quantum mechanics, therefore they are *not* > new levels. This (your) intellect is "intelligence" not the 4th. level. The latter don't value the MOQ one bit. Look to this discussion, most are SOMists (intellect-stuck) and only treats the MOQ as a mystical something. > > By SOM you hopefully mean what became the 4th. level. > Of course... not. :) One can show an ass the water but not force it to drink. > > 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. That of language as a representation of reality is SOM, but we are supposed to have shifted focus to the MOQ. You are not alone however, most people at this site subscribe to the idea that the MOQ (because it is conveyed by language) is secondary to the Quality it talks about. Even Pirsig fell victim to the enemy he - as Phaedrus - set out to conquer. > 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. I try to be a MOQ philosopher. About the tree I have expressed no opinion if my memory is intact. > > 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". There were no gravity only the data of things falling to the ground. Thus there was no Quality (in the MOQ sense) before Pirsig. Newton's explanation was so good that it soon transformed physics (and now so cemented that you have difficulties understanding the example). The MOQ explanation is so good that it will (if not that soon) transform metaphysics. Bo 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/
