On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Magnus Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan > >> Dan: >> Let's begin by saying the levels in the MOQ are provisional... they >> describe reality but we won't actually find levels "out there" to >> examine and investigate. > > Yes we do! > > I have spent 13 years on and off to investigate those levels and I think > I've come up with a far better understanding than anyone has ever shown > here.
Dan: So, we're all idiots here. Huh. I don't disagree. But still, why are you wasting your precious time on a bunch of idiots? > > And since this is one big issue that seems to alienate me from all the rest > here, there's just no way for me to have a deep conversation with anyone > anymore. It always ends here. I think the levels are for real, that they > really do reflect the reality "out there". You try to use them yourself a > few paragraphs down, you try to tell me what a house is made of and how its > built by biological people, but every time you use the levels, you make it > up as you go along. It will probably end up differently every time. If you, > Pirsig and someone else with a similar understanding of the levels were to > explain how a few things were built up by the levels, your explanations > would be, if not completely, so substantially different. And if you were to > explain it again a few months later, it would be different again. Dan: Make it up as I go along? Come on. I thought you wanted to discuss the RMP annotations, Magnus. And here you are being a dick. > > What kind of a *system* is that? It's no system at all, it's just an > ad-hoc... I don't know, fairy-tale generator. Dan: What are you talking about? I used the framework of the MOQ to explain the value of a house. You don't like it? Fine. But I didn't just make it up! Where do you get that idea? > > Do you really think the MoQ can make an impact in the scientific community > with four levels that "doesn't really reflect reality, we're just guessing > every time we want to analyse a thing"? Shouldn't that *be* the aim? To make > such an impact? I remember it was in the beginning of the Lila Squad, but it > doesn't seem to be that anymore. Dan: Dude, chill. You are totally misrepresenting what I said. > >> Finally, the MOQ doesn't "allow" anything. The MOQ is a set of >> intellectual patterns of value that describe reality... it is not >> reality itself that can dictate what is allowed and what is not. This >> line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry. > > Yes, I'm sorry too. Dan: Hey man, you always got Platt to talk to. He understands. > >> >>> Magnus: >>> Then, he continues with something, I don't know what to call it without >>> sounding disrespectful, but the word lame is what I really mean. Anyway, >>> "The hand that taps the computer keys is biological."?? Come on! We're >>> trying to be serious here but *that's* disrespectful! >> >> Dan: >> My hand is biological. How do we interact with the computer but >> through tapping keys on the keyboard? > > An automatic backup-program can for example read *all* intellectual patterns > from a computer. There are countless ways for computers to interact with > eachother without any human intervention whatsoever, just accept that and > then try to think again how a computer supports those intellectual patterns. > > What I was trying to explain with the house example (and with the broken > computer) is that a thing that possesses a certain type of patterns must be > supported by all lower patterns *at that very instant*. Whether some other > patterns have once supported it by building it is completely irrelevant. > It's like saying a room should be lit up because you once lit it up with a > flashlight. Dan: Honestly Magnus, I have no idea what you're saying. It seems important to you though. > >> I guess you're saying you feel RMP's annotation is overly simplistic >> and disrespectful. Okay. Point taken. I prefer short and elegant to >> long and windy but we all have our preferences. > > No, not just simplistic. Metaphysically irrelevant. Dan: Okay. How? > >> Dan: >> We built the goddamn thing and you're saying we can't fix it? Huh. >> Stuff breaks down all the time. It's the nature of patterns. They >> arise, flourish, and pass away. Look around you, Magnus. Is there any >> permanence? I see none. > > Right! But you still don't realize the relevance of that do you? Dan: No. I'm an idiot. Remember? one > instant, the computer was working and supported intellectual patterns. The > next moment it didn't work anymore. That means that some supporting pattern > failed, which caused a snowball effect so that the intellectual patterns > vanished as well. But it was *not* the biological pattern "the computer > builder" who broke it. It wasn't even the computer operator that caused it > to fail. It failed by itself. So before it failed, the intellectual patterns > were supported by some social, some biological and some inorganic patterns > in the computer. After it failed, just an instant later, some of those > patterns were gone, and so the rest above it failed too. > > Do you now understand what I mean? Do you understand that a computer that > supports intellectual patterns must be supported by all lower levels at all > times, otherwise it doesn't work? Dan: No. No clue. > >> Dan: >> I don't know, Magnus. It looks to me alike you're saying the MOQ is >> some kind of set-in-stone metaphysics that only allows for certain >> things. It is not. The MOQ is a Dynamic document. It will work until >> something better comes along. > > Don't just use that old standard disclaimer. Do something about it! Make it > work for all gedanken experiments! Dan: Hey man, if that's your thing, go for it. Please, though, I've got enough on my plate just now. > >> Dan: >> Subjective and objective are shorthand terms for patterns of value. >> How is that wrong? > > Because subject and object is created by the Quality event. > And a Quality event is of one the levels, either intellectual, social, > biological or inorganic. > So, at each inorganic quality event, there's a subject and an object. > At each biological quality event, there's a subject and an object. > At each social quality event, there's a subject and an object. > At each intellectual quality event, there's a subject and an object. Dan: There is no reference to quality event in LILA, so far as I know. This doesn't make a lot of sense, Magnus. But you sure seem to have it figured. > > If Pirsig were telling the truth and all intellectual and social patterns > were subjective and all biological and inorganic patterns were objective, > then the only possible quality events would be: > > intellectual-biological > intellectual-inorganic > social-inorganic > social-biological > > That's what's wrong. Dan: I'm sorry to have wasted your time. But good luck, Dan 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/md/archives.html
