Greetings Bo,
At 03:15 AM 2/15/2009, you wrote:
Hi Marsha
Bo before:
> > "Intellect is the value of the "real/representative" distinction.
Marsha:
> I do not understand this sentence. I see all
> patterns having the same nature, but pointing to
> referents of varying evolutionary standing, and
> because of that, falling into the different
There are different levels for the reason that patterns are NOT of
the same nature.
Inorganic patterns are incompatible with biological patterns and so
on upwards.
In my MOQ world, the nature of patterns is as mental
constructs. Patterns (mental constructions) that represent
conventional knowledge of the inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual kind.
> levels. The pattern E = mc2 and its mathematical
> meaning would fall into the Intellectual level. Yes? No?
Yes, it is because it is supposed to be an objective"law" of nature,
not merely a figment of
Einstein's mind (ref. Newton's Gravity) SOM again..
Yes, and the operative word is 'supposed'. Not SOM again. Not self
and objects, but ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected,
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of
value responding to Dynamic Quality.
Zebra is a static pattern of value, an ever-changing mental
construction extracted from Dynamic Quality. There is not an
external object Zebra, but only the overlaid pattern whose label is
zebra. Zebras exists only by conventional recognition of the
pattern. The Zebra-spov would fall into the Biological Level. Where
you want to stick the word 'zebra' is where I get somewhat
confused. Because language is a social phenomenon, I would tend to
put it in the Social Level.
> Thoughts? Bo? Anybody?
I'll bring up my: "Intellect is the value of the
"real/representative" distinction" sentence again
and try a most "grotesque" application of it.
Real? Conventionally real?
SOList or not we all agree that the social level did not have the
subject/object distinction (of
which "representative versus real" is a form) now we also agree that
formal religions are
social patterns ...no?
For me the most pure formal religion is Islam (Christendom is
heavily intellect-influenced)
and a muslim fundamentalist will blow himself to
smithereens because killing islam's
enemies will grant him an eternal life in paradise.
The point is that afterlife, paradise and such aren't spiritual to
social level dwellers, but very
corporeal and sensual. This is what intellect has driven its S/O
wedge into and if not totally
made religions into dubious subjective state of MIND (as the
scientific skeptical branch has
it) then at least made the afterlife ..etc. into a soul-ish,
spiritual experience (as the intellect-
influenced Christendom has it).
Do you now understand why I call the subject/object split (or
mind/matter) intellect's VALUE
and why I alternate between praising and accusing it? It has
disarmed religious fanaticism
yet when it comes to you (folks) your total immersion in intellect
makes you incapable of
understanding the MOQ. ...if not this is a turning point? Must add
that this is just one single
aspect of intellect's "control" of social value.
Religion is a social level pattern. I see little value in any of the
Abrahamic religions. Abusing reason for God's (power's) sake hardly
makes Christianity intellectual. At least, imho. You seem to be
comparing the blue pixie with the green pixie. It all sounds like
silliness to me.
Marsha
.
_____________
The self is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality .
.
.
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/
