Magnus, Dave, All. 18 Feb:
>From Magnus' essay I presume: > > > ³But how could the novel LILA be intellectual patterns when there > > > were no social or biological patterns between the novel and the > > > inorganic patterns to support it?² [Undressing on MoQ site] First of all LILA is no intellectual pattern, but a MOQ pattern that has a sub-set (a static level) called "intellect". The fact that it is a book with signs on paper does not make it any more "intellectual" than Egyptian hieroglyphs ... or the "Old books of the Bible" that Pirsig declared without intellectual content. Magnus now: > I don't think you have to involve any special cases to solve it. My > solution is that the patterns-to-meaning mapping is the social > language that is required to read the text and understand it. Language proper surely started as a social means (pattern) of communication, but "patterns-to-meaning mapping"? An animal can well "map" the meaning of bared fangs or an amoeba the meaning of sulfuric acid. But the lower level can't "map" the patterns of the higher thus intellect-dwellers can't recognize the MOQ but keep insisting that LILA is an intellectual artefact. > Without that mapping, the text is nothing but ink. Or in other words, > the intellectual patterns are dependent on the social pattern language. Well, without knowing the language words are just sounds and without understanding the MOQ language LILA is just an intellectual "sound". > > This is of particular concern with the intellectual level. You said > > Lila, the text, is an intellectual pattern. How do you know? How is > > it we make this distinction? How do we you know that distinction is > > correct? Had D.T. asked this from the MOQ premises it would have been most apt. As mentioned, LILA is no more intellectual than the hieroglyhs were, but is as inscrutable to intellect-dwellers as the hieroglyphs were before the Rosetta Stone. > Not really sure how to answer that without reciting large parts of the > essay. I guess my way of knowing is that I have, at least to myself, > made a clear distinction of what is what and how everything sticks > together. I spent a few years trying to find holes in that system, > resulting in a slightly revised system and the first essay. I still > try to find holes in my system, but as time goes by and I still can't > find any, I tend to increase my sense of knowing these things you ask. I just found a hole bigger than the solar system. >From the essay: > > > ³Intellectual patterns use the language provided by the society to > > > simulate another layer of static quality. By doing this, > > > intellectual patterns can build models of its own reality and > > > manipulate the models without manipulating the reality. > > > Intellectual Quality Events are associations, inspiration etc.² > > > [Undressing on MoQ site] Don't you think social level cultures - the Egyptians or Babylonians f.ex. - could build models, carry out calculations, or simply think in beforehand how things could be made? Only they had not achieved the intellectual lingo about "manipulating models different from Reality" They surely had as many association and inspirations as ourselves. Bodvar 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/
