On 1 Dec 2000, at 22:35, Johannes Volmert wrote:
snip......:
> (Old
> members are yawning at my eagerness, perhaps :-) )
Hi JoVo and MD.
This old one did not yawn, rather jump with joy at your taking the
pains to dig ....and finding this "magnum opus" by Magnus :-).
You went on:
> What problem I do have with the levels, they're those are too rough. I
> think, that having only four areas or zones to distinguish
> value-beings and also their complement in mind the intellectual
> patterns of value, is at least one reason for difficulties to find a
> reliable assertion of the named (s.a.).
I have problems deciphering the above, particularly this " ......and
also their complement in mind the intellectual patterns of value ..."
etc? Do the levels IYO have a mind counterpart and is mind =
intellect?
Allow me to take the lectern:
Ahem. Either are the levels, the whole MOQ, the SOM - everything
"in the mind" - or mind is a by-product of matter. Jo, don't you see
that this is the very Subject/Object that the MOQ is supposed to
replace? I am a little worried that this simple fact is overlooked. The
fact that new-comers publish their discovery that Pirsig has
"forgotten" the observer/world (mind/matter) problem is forgivable,
but we are supposed to know better.
Again: The above everything-in-the-mind "double-bend" is the very
impass� that sent Phaedrus (of ZAMM) on the Quality quest. The
SOM materialist claims that mind is a matter by-product, while the
SOM idealist claims that everything is (in the) mind. Of the two the
idealists have the best case, but the inevitable result is the
solipsist dead-end: The world our creation! Nothing is real!
And many believe that this is the MOQ position, but NO!!!! This is
what drove P. insane, but from beyond (what he then called "the
myth") he experienced that the QUALITY is the source of both
mind and matter......and so on.
But what good does it do if we re-introduce the SOM inside the
MOQ by claiming that the static levels have a mind component - or
an intellect-cum-mind one? If so we are back in the quagmire! No, if
the MOQ is to stand its ground it's Intellect must ALSO be a
limited static level, not any all-encompassing mind "containing" the
other levels.
(staggering down from the lectern).
JoVo cntd:
> So my model is similar to
> Magnus' dimension-model, but it tries to find a refined grid, in order
> to achieve a better solution of observation (like that of TV). Only
> with a refined grid, a zooming-in is possible, i.e. is making sense.
> (see also my last post to MF/Nov).
> Magnus Berg wrote on Wed, 05 Jul 2000
> > Now, I'm going to, for the n:th time describe the dimensional way of
> > looking at the levels. Unlike Jonathan, I'm reluctant to refer to
> > old posts. Every time I write something, I do it a little different,
> > and perhaps this little difference will make it come through
> > clearer.
> > Anyway, the dimensional view of the levels has nothing to do with
> > art. It's a view of the static levels, so the DQ is disregarded. If
> > we start with the first level, the inorganic, it only expands in one
> > dimension, or direction. So if we apply that to the forces of the
> > inorganic level, gravity, electromagnetism and so on, all of these
> > forces only expands in one metaphysical dimension. I.e. they are
> > ultimately composed of the same "ground stuff of reality", inorganic
> > quality. This hypothesis is not yet proven though, but this is what
> > physicists is calling the GUT (Grand Unified Theory). If proven, I
> > would take it as a strong indicator of the validity of the MoQ
> > levels. And I would certainly take it as proof and definition of the
> > first level.
> > Now, when we start expanding into the second, biological level, the
> > straight line starts to build upwards in a straight angle to the
> > first dimension. The result is a rectangle that has both length and
> > height. An example of such a "rectangle" is an amoeba. It shows all
> > the characteristics of every other inorganic pattern, i.e. it has
> > mass, gravity and so on. But it also has a few senses of the
> > biological level. It can sense what it should eat and what not to
> > eat. I was just looking at the equalizer of the WinAmp on my
> > desktop, that's also a good analogy of what an amoeba is. When a
> > song is playing, the equalizer's different bands are jumping up and
> > down just as the amoeba's senses are acting and reacting. But when
> > the song is over, the equalizer bands vanishes, just as the
> > biological patterns of the amoeba disappears when it dies. The
> > inorganic is still around though.
> > When viewing the levels like this, the inter dependency between the
> > levels becomes more than just an enforced rule. It a rule of
> > necessity, like "people cannot live without air", not an enforced
> > rule like "basketball players cannot run more than two steps without
> > bouncing the ball".
The dimensional analogy is a splendid one generally, and
particularly is Magnus' above a profoundly important observation.
Once upon a time Struan (Hellier) called the Biological and Social
levels an unnecessary complication between matter and mind. The
dimensional view shows their inevitability, exactly as Magnus says.
IMO the very "soul" of the MOQ is that - f.ex. Intellect - is the fourth
dimension - or fourth power of matter, not a quantum jump into
some mind realm.
> > The dimensional view continues to the social level by extending the
> > rectangle inwards to form a cube. In this cube we have inorganic,
> > biological and social patterns of value. The wolf in the beginning
> > of the post is not only social and biological, it's also inorganic.
> It is a nice read, indeed! I had read it by that time, but forgot
> about it - at least consciously. But it seems to be also connected
> somehow to my stuff, I guess.
Don't take my speech as an rebuttal JoVo. If you find the
dimension analogy good, then perhaps "your stuff" is not so
somish as I made it sound.
Thanks for reading.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
