> [Krimel] > Evolution doesn't drive anything. It is a description of how patterns > adapt in response to change, flux, uncertainty; in other words dynamic > quality. Evolution is a reflexive process where the output of one cycle > becomes the input for the next.
[Mati] Ok no argument here. [Krimel] So you agree that DQ is simply change and uncertainty? > [Krimel] > But, if you remove the reference to evolution entirely from the statement, > perhaps it does go without saying that the intellectual level is the > collection of all intellectual patterns. A pattern is that which has > extension in time. It is the encoding of experience into concepts. In that > sense all patterns are intellectual. [Mati] There is an argument here. The problem is then the intellectual level becomes a free for all and basically anything you can think of. [Krimel] Right, everything you can think of and everything anyone has ever thought of are potentially part of the intellectual level. To actually be part of the intellectual level as such, it must be a pattern. That is it must persist or have extension in the temporal dimension. [Mati] Based on "encoding of experience into concepts" the intellectual level could have well existed before the social level, which would defy the basic principles of MOQ. [Krimel] I don't think it is possible for intellect to precede society but if that were the case it would indeed be a problem for the MoQ. However, we see that the social level is primary in almost all primates and most mammals. Intellect on the other hand only begins to show up in the great apes. [Mati] The point is when we discuss something that can defined metaphysically has always come home to the S/O reality. [Krimel] That does seem to be Bo's oft stated notion. It is so clearly wrong that it is a wonder that anyone buys, much less repeats it. The MoQ is an intellectual pattern that alleges not to be SOM as are eastern religions, and work of any number of philosophers. [Mati] When you discuss something factually it requires a metaphysical basis of understanding to provide it legitimacy. Truth that was socially defined required the gods for an answer, Truth intellectually speaking required the S/O platform. The problem was this platform was flawed in which MOQ becomes the next better platform. [Krimel] Well "T"ruth is itself an intellectual pattern. Any talk of a social Truth is just intellectualizing about the social. Social patterns are patterns of interaction among con-specifics. Discourse about these patterns, for that matter discourse itself, is at the intellectual level. Discourse can be "about" anything and from any platform. [Mati] The metaphysical path of "encoding of experience into concepts" is a dead end that gets nowhere metaphysically speaking in the same manner as SOM. Bo's simply points that out. [Krimel] Saying it is a dead end does not make it so. This issue of encoding and decoding experience into concepts is fundamental to perception and discourse. It is what we are biologically and socially equipped to do and without it we have nothing to say no capacity to say it. BTW, metaphysics, like physics, is mainly a matter of finding the smallest set of concepts to account for the largest amount of experience. Static and dynamic are two such concepts that account for a wider range of phenomena than do subjects and objects or mind and matter. 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/
