Hi David
David
You made the same mistake as Ian. I have been laying out for over a month
now, the negative consequences of Bo's interpretation and trying to find
some reasonable resolution, with no success. You take those examples for my
position. But to be honest as I've been exploring those issues I have become
more and more uneasy with some of the MoQ's relationships and their
implications.
I sympathize with your efforts. I'm afraid I haven't followed it for a whole
month but I back-tracked a few days.
I don't know if you've heard about my interpretation of the MoQ, but I think it
can be used to resolve, for example, this never ending argument about what
social and intellectual patterns are, what governs the other, etc.
When discussing social patterns vs. intellectual the way they're normally
discussed here, then what you visualize are larger populations of humans like
cities and countries as social patterns, and then different human means to
control those structures as intellectual patterns.
But the way I see it, none of those patterns are *primary* social and
intellectual patterns. They are just secondary manifestations, something like a
country being a social pattern made up of cities. Bo usually ridicule me about
this, asking me when this dividing into smaller and smaller structures ends, but
he just doesn't understand what I'm talking about.
In my view, which is extremely pragmatic but nevertheless just an extrapolation
of the MoQ outlined in Lila, the primary manifestation of intellectual patterns
happened much earlier than that. The first intellectual patterns surfaced when
the nerves in multi celled animals grew together into a knot, enabling some
nerve signals to be dynamically processed and re-routed instead of just being
statically sent from one end of the animal to another.
Now, what does this have to do with the current discussion about intellect,
intelligence and social patterns? Quite a lot. If you acknowledge that
intellectual patterns are present in many multicellular animals, then the
argument about humans having intellect and at the same time governed by social
structures goes away. You can put Platt's never ending claims that personal -
intellectual - freedom, takes moral precedence over social rules into
perspective. We can see that the intellectual patterns in each human, are
morally superior to the social patterns that make up the human's body. But in
the context of the society, the human is simply a biological building block. So
if the person wants to be protected by the society's building blocks like police
and legal system, then that person also has some obligations to the society. In
other words, the MoQ supports common sense.
Also, this superficial distinction between intellect and intelligence becomes a
mere game with words. And the SOL, well, to quote another of my favorite books,
"vanishes in a puff of logic".
This was just a short primer. There are a lot more in my two essays in the forum
on the MoQ site. Or you can just ask here. But believe me, it *is* possible to
straighten out many of the questions raised here on MD. I just don't have the
time or the willingness to eat insults for breakfast every day. But if you're
interested in knowing more, I'd be happy to have a sincere discussion.
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/
