Hi Arlo, Well, this is fun. Some do not persevere long. I am more than happy to drop subjects such as SOM that reach a dead end. In my opinion, more than enough has been said about this trivial part of MoQ.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:00 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark] > The story provides awareness and cannot be subjected to rules of truth. > Making > sense of them is also the duty of the reader. > > [Arlo] > Yikes. In other words, I can say anything I want and can't be criticized, for > the onus of making sense of my words is on you, not me. And I don't even know > what 'my words cannot be subject to rules of truth' means, but given that I > don't know what the point of continued dialogue would even be... [Mark] Yikes? You cleverly removed my next sentence which stated that I have an obligation to answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability. But I am used to this sound-bite methodology, Dan used to do it all the time. I do respect Dan nonetheless. Think about it Arlo. My awareness is internally translated into thoughts which are then converted to words that I feel are meaningful. These words are then placed on a page in a nebulous English Grammar (German is much better for philosophy), which are then sent over the ether to another, whom I have never met. This other then looks at the words and translates them into ones own thoughts that are full of baggage, fear, expectations, resentments and so forth. These thoughts are then sent to your awareness (I hope) which then brings them back out into some symbolic form which has meaning to you. So, given all of that, do you not think that the reader has some obligation? Or, do you think that everything is given on a silver platter? Philosophy is a little more complicated than looking at a menu at Burger King for the umpteenth time. I do not see why you are surprised or amazed. Words are only a small part of the deal as I demonstrate in this paragraph. I cannot spoon feed you. > > [Mark] > Yes, I agree that language is social, and as such we can place all of it into > the social level. > > [Arlo] > I don't think this is correct. I think forms of language (semiosis) > underscores > both the social and intellectual levels. But whereas social "language" is > descriptive and transactional, intellectual "language" is abstracting and > hyper-relational. [Mark] OK, I was simply giving my understanding of what you presented previously. It would appear that you are placing the levels beneath the power of words. This is a serious flaw in your analysis of MoQ. The umbrella of language that you present does not exist with the importance that you place on it; it is simply a tool. It would seem that you do not have a clear grasp of what "abstracting" means if you feel it depends on words. This is one of those Western problems with words. Just ask Wiggystein. However, to support what you say, language can be seen as a code as is brilliantly written on by Neil Stephenson (check out the Command Line from 2004, or Cryptonomicon), but we make the code, the code does not make the levels. We do not make the levels through words. Such a notion is an immediate philosphical dead end, going the way of subjectivism and many other circular arguments. You seem to have the lingo and buzz words, but I do not see much depth there. Try a little harder to convert what you are saying into common words. This is easy to do if one is fully in tune with what one is saying, rather than parroting some other guy. How is it Hyper-relational? > > [Mark] > We are all "trapped" in that sense (OMG!). I do not see how one can > state that we are the Intellectual level. > > [Arlo] > That all humans share inorganic and biological patterns in their composition > is > undeniable. But humans are also comprised of social and intellectual patterns > of value. I never said "we are the intellectual level", I said we are > comprised > of ALL the levels; we have inorganic, biological, social and intellectual > components. [Mark] Me thinks that you do not understand MoQ. Would you agree that there are distinct levels? The way you present it, it seems that they are extremely fuzzy, to the point of being totally useless. The levels are one of the prime premises of MoQ. They should not be relegated to here-say. I could take this into a tangent and ask you what do you mean by "we" or "I" are comprised. No doubt I would be met with this silly notion of patterns, patterns, and more patterns. Let's get away from that and get down to earth on this. If what you are saying is that "we" have atoms, and cells, and societies, and chess games, then you are not speaking of the levels. The levels are overarching symbols of a useful division of reality for the purposes of explaining MoQ. What you state above about "comprised" does not lead to any understanding. Perhaps you could break that up a bit so that I can understand what you are thinking. > > [Mark] > OK, I can use your vernacular. Yes, of course it is SOM, that is the nature > of > discussion. > > [Arlo] > Ah, well we are back in "language" or "intellect" being SOM, and right there > is > your mistake. I am afraid we can't progress any further, this is an impasse > that leaves us speaking about two separate metaphysics. [Mark] OK, my mistake, but you do not explain why. Do you know why? I am happy to avoid this impasse. I will simply state that SOM is a tool like a hammer is a tool. It is nothing more and nothing less than that. So replace SOM with hammer and you will get an idea of what I am talking about. SOM is only used to communicate in a social setting. It is not used outside of that. Of course if you are mixing all the levels in a pot, then perhaps it could possibly be. However, that then becomes some kind of new age movement, and not a credible philosophy. > > [Mark] > So to make this consistent within MoQ framework, would you say that DQ informs > SQ which instantly impacts DQ? > > [Arlo] > Almost. DQ certainly imparts structure (SQ) which in turn alters possibility > of > further response to DQ. [Mark] OK, I can agree with that as presented. It certainly fits with what I am saying. A novel analogy may be appropriate. > > Patterns form as the result of value, or the experience of Quality, and these > patterns have certain ranges of possibility in how they respond. An amoeba > will > never build an airplane, it lies completely outside its range of possibility, > but as structures evolved, the range of agency for patterns increased, and > eventually a pattern did appear that "building an airplane" was within its > range of possibility. And that agency was made possible by the evolving > structures supporting it. [Mark] Yes, an analogy, Damn Patterns! I feel like I am in some seedy oriental rug factory being sold a bill of goods. What exactly do you mean by that? We form patterns with our brains of the outside world. Is that what you mean? Is patterns the same thing as codependent arising? Are patterns what Marsha says that they are? Tell me, how does Pirsig explain patterns? I see you are subscribing to some kind of Darwinistic Evolution with your example. Such evolution is a paradigm. Do you know what it is a paradigm of? Did we build the airplane or did the airplane build us? You know, this give and take and change cycle you present with DQ and sq. I get a sense of what you are saying, thus the questions which perhaps you can elaborate on. Is this as simple as adding rooms onto a house? Or is there something more to it? > > [Mark] > No nothing like subjectivism. I am speaking of personal awareness. > > [Arlo] > Subjectivism. [Mark] Deal, I'll drop it. It is unholy subjectivism like W. James subscribes to. > > [Mark] > This also has nothing to do with S/O thinking. It is outside of that. > > [Arlo] > Inside a MOQ, what type of pattern would you call "personal awareness", a > biological pattern of value? [Mark] Yes, if I use my definition of Pattern. > > [Mark] > I can dismiss the road in the same way I can dismiss my thoughts. > > [Arlo] > You can't claim you dismiss the road if you continue to follow it. All you are > doing is the monkey hands over your eyes. La la la la, I don't need no road... > you say as you carefully keep your car on the road. The road is a prison that > we must dismiss, you say, as you drive from place to place obeying all signs, > laws and following the roads. [Mark] You would be surprised it just takes practice. You know like David H's perfection. It is something you have to see for yourself. The road is not a prison. It is a static pattern. I do not subscribe to static patterns as being BAD like some do. Static and dynamic are artificial dichotomies only for the purposes of rhetorical presentation. > > [Mark] > I am using the divine in a pejorative way. Like saying I am Godly. Please > continue to explain what we are that is more than the biological level, I can > learn something. > > [Arlo] > ? The very fact that we are discussing this using a shared, social language > and > manipulating abstract symbols with no corresponding I/B pattern, well if > that's > not proof that we are more than simply biological patterns, I don't know what > else to say. [Mark] Is that what makes us more? Don't animals do this. Ever studies a beehive? Don't atoms interact together in defined patterns so that they can "understand" each other? What exactly is symbol manipulation that only Man can do it? When mercury is spilled, there is all sorts of manipulation going on. Again, I do not see a clear distinction which makes Man somehow Godly. > > [Mark] > Well, it has been said often in this forum that the human agency does not > exist > in the measurable world. > > [Arlo] > Things exist that have value. Now you are sliding into objectivism. [Mark] Which is why I prefaced it as something said in this forum. I would say existence and value are synonymous, so we call it Quality. But here I am using Value and Quality interchangeably, something that annoys Ham. But we do agree here. > > [Mark] > The levels are dynamic and not structures, but this is just nit-picking on my > part. > > [Arlo] > The levels are not Dynamic Quality, they are static quality, they are stable > patterns of response TO Dynamic Quality. [Mark] Picture yourself as a level. What do you feel? To us a river is a static, but to the river it is a dynamic. There is a difference between a representation and a thing. Just ask Plato, he loved to talk about these things. His view was a bit limited, however, thus we have the branch of MoQ. > > [Mark] > The intellectual level existed long before humans so if you mean brought > recently, then you are mistaken. > > [Arlo] > You are obviously no longer talking about Pirsig's MOQ, but one of your own. > Tell me, when do you think an "intellectual level" appeared? [Mark] I do not believe that Pirsig claims that humans created the intellectual level. If he has, then I stand corrected, and will have to think whether that is a useful concept of simply an anthropomorphic representation of a bigger concept. The intellectual level did not appear, just like Quality did not appear. This is MoQ 101. The intellectual level creates, just like Quality. Remember, that the Intellectual level is used (in a way) as a construct within Quality. I could ask you, "when did the Tao appear?" and you would hopefully see this as a nonsensical question. But to answer your question since I can see where this is heading in a temporal sense, The Intellectual Level appeared at the beginning (whenever that was). in fact, like the rest of Quality it could be said to have existed before that. Now, if I were truly into subjectivism, I would have said that it appeared when I was born. But this is something coming more from Ham than from me. I think I scared Ham away. Cheers, Mark > > > 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 > 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
