Hello Bo:
<Snip>>> (Bo) > What you write is the usual approach, the S/O is one tool in an > intellectual toolbox - or level - a good tool, but there may be other other > non-S/O tools in there. Isn't that how you reason? mel A Newtonian Model of Reasoning for Physics works to a certain point A Euclidean Model of Geometry works in certain conditions. Both fail outside of certain conditions...no longer useful tools. Musically the form of the Blues can work or Jazz or Baroque etc. but sometimes they don't work for a purpose or in combination. Visual or kinetic reasoning can lead to similar decision points. None are inherently Subjective or Objective any more than classifying Fungus as Vegetable or as its own Kindom makes it so. The Morel fruiting body does, unbothered. Assignment of what is Subjective and What is objective is a matter of training and not always obvious or applicable. The tool has limits and it is an illusion outside of those limits. ...Least ways, that's how the flat slimy thing dances in my head. (Bo) > This was my approach at first, but I soon realized that it fails. F.ex. if > we compared it with the biological level the many organisms are > classified as belonging to the biological "box" for the reason of being > alive (the inorganic and social levels have their own characteristics) mal Box or bin reasoning may trap us for what it isn't. A level, as dependent upon and emergent from (and beyond) the lower level is not so much separation-for-classification as 'united for dependency, yet struggling for the delta in dynamism'. The way your language works above is our typical educated English structured to focus on SOM, but a subtle slide sideways step may help rub the frost off the glass. What did help me in this was the study I was doing of complex adaptive systems, emergence, chaos, and realizing the glimmer of subtlety 'between and with' instead of 'separation of'...if that makes sense. (Bo) > > Mustn't we conclude that the intellectual patterns must have one > quality in common? And what is this ? Nothing has to this day > emerged except "thoughts" or "ideas", but this is SOM's "mind" and > can't be valid in a metaphysics that has rejected the mind/matter > distinction. mel To answer your question of a quality-in-common question we have the attribute of mind, the ceaseless, or nearly so, tendency to model patterns extracted, abstracted, (and any other 'acted you can find) from any other observed, imagined, or pretended source. Intellectual patterns as staid as thoughts ot ideas encoded in an academic sense are a very static form of intellect. More improvisational activities of intellect, we can dress up as 'ideas' but they feel different at the time. Jazz musicians can perform 'dynamic mircles' that in the flow of performance are non repeatable for reasons of context not of patterns dancing in unique flow, rather than a mistaked idea of "subjective." Put another way...it was the only answer to the equation of the actions in that set, but that has no sense of the dynamism of the moment. (oh, and Mind/Matter distinction is no more significant than its usefulness at the moment. It's the process / part distinction, really--no one has much heartburn there.) (Bo) > You say you "..feel like coming into the middle of a > discussion" and you certainly do, we have discussed this for ages. Yet, > when you said "Good point" (about the one below) > mel As long as we use SOM adapted thinking and speech we will continue in this spin cycle, but slowly erosion brings change (No deliberate re-creation ex-nihilo of language will fix this, just slow certain evolution) <snip> (Bo) > I thought you had understood the SOL because the paragraph actually > says that the S/O distinction is the intellectual level. OK, keep > thinking. mel For the moment the best way my thoughts line up on this is to say the SOM is a relative static pattern in the intellectual level. As time passes and as patterns achieve certain dynamisms SOM is less useful and maybe even of lower quality. For a time I was around some scary math folks, a wierd and incomprehensibly articulate tribe, found on the fourth floor of a brick building with mouth-parts designed to suck jelley from the center of doughnuts. As best I was able to follow discussions, the intuitive leaps were described as sensations, moods, or in terms of aesthetics. One member was a synaesthetic(sp?) who would find his answers in the flavor that flooded his mouth or the sound of the shape of the (problem?) These would seem to fit the criteria of 'subjective,' but they were higher functioning minds than mine and their final articulation of results, when translated down to a common language of those of us outside their tribe, were numeric or narrative (if a proof). You could try, out of a nineteenth century sensibility to force a classification that labeled certain of the behaviors as "Sub or Ob," but it wouldn't be useful. SOM is less than the mind works, than the intellect unfolds as and at some point likely to be left behind as something else emerges from intellect in the future... no doubt a long way off. Thanks for letting me think for a while. I hope some of this makes sense. Though no doubt there are holes I've left for a large vehicle to pass through. The way I've danced through this is on the high points and any discussion of what lower level qualities or patterns support which higher level, or what dynamic flights are buttressed in their 'launch' by which static ones is left to the slow and boring plodding of notebook work. Sad and very anal in the dark of night under the circle of a high intensity lamp... Enjoy. thanks--mel 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/
