Hi Bo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have questioned if the evolution inside the respective levels is > an improvement, if for instance the mammal organism is better > LIFE than the amoeba. IMO the betterment rests on the level > shift. The said internal evolution is rather a "complication" of the > early simple patterns to more complex and instable ones. This is > necessary for the formation of one sufficiently instable to be the > carrier of the next value stage. That is why this passage: > > When it's complex (long) enough, the biological level can > extend upwards on the Y-axis forming a 2D plane. > > .. struck me. Is your "complex" term significant or just a > coincidence?
Complex is very much intentional and significant. However, you seem to equate complexity and instability, whereas I don't. A computer/robot is very complex, but at the same time very stable. It can't change and make something it wasn't designed to do. This is why I use the term "evolutionary path". Such a path starts out very simple and almost static. But as it evolves, it becomes more complex and more dynamic. Branches will extend from the main path, and some will prevail. But some are too dynamic/instable and dies, others are too static and can't adapt to environmental changes. > I agree to the dimension view of the Q-levels. Intellect is the 4th. > dimension, but the dimensions are only seen from the MOQ > meta-level. The levels themselves have a "flat earth" view of > their own world. Intellect sees only the surface and regards > everything as an expansion of intellect. Ancient world views were > "ancient intellect" and - most important - it can't fathom that > anything can "escape" intellect, but for the MOQ to have intellect > as its own static level it MUST have gone beyond intellect. I tend to think that intellectual patterns is the only level that can represent other patterns of any level, including intellectual patterns. That's the basis of having the ability to represent itself. It's also a requirement for us discussing patterns of all levels. >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/browse_frm/thread/6145a5 >> 93c60eca69/fdd6be5899ca1fe3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#fdd6be5899ca1fe3 > >> But that was actually a reply to another thread initiated by Andrew: > >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/browse_frm/thread/fe43c9 >> cc7f48b6ef/5e4a84dbdcc95da5?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#5e4a84dbdcc95da5 > > Thanks I will try to find these things. (it requires Google > subscription) Huh? I don't think so. Just make sure to copy the whole URL. They are wrapped at the end. Otherwise you can make a search at http://groups.google.com/advanced_search for "Pirsig" between 97-01-01 - 97-12-31 >> No, it's not mind from matter. It's just the same as biological >> brains. You don't need to break the MoQ, just define the biological a >> teeny weeny bit broader than most do. See my essay in the forum. > > Hmmm. "The need for defining the biological level a bit broader" > struck me as familiar. I mused (some time ago) about how the > notion of mind or consciousness emerged. > > Intelligence is a tool, but not only for the 4th level, it > began at the biological level with the neural concentration > we call brain and its capability of storing "experience", not > merely as neural imprints (ROM), but as RAM where > experience could be retrieved and re-run to anticipate > different "if so, then" futures. Without language of course > at this stage. I agree, except that there *is* a language even here. To be able to store anything, you need a language to be able to understand the stored information later. This is how intellectual patterns seemingly skips the social level in brains, but actually it doesn't. It's supported by the social pattern "language". > (A crow outside my window has found a way to hoist a > food ball up and step on the string while it shifts the beak > to a new position. It's plain that some mental rehearsal > preceded this.) > > With the human brain and its cortex layer things reached > a point that enabled the social level. Language may not > have entered yet, but when it did, intelligence changed > into "thinking" (the inner dialogue we know so well). But > the social level did not look upon thought-words as > subjective but as means to evoke the powers through > rituals. > > The intellectual level's value was to divide this "oneness". > Words became symbols different from what they > symbolize, thoughts departed from their objects: In > general existence became the detached subject that looks > out on an objective inert reality. And it's this > DISTINCTION which is intellect NOT the conscious > subject. > > Anything remotely resembling this? Yes, and I understand now where your idea about SOLAQI comes from. I can agree that science has been done using the SO division for quite a while. But the intellectual level is about much more than representing/discussing science. We still use intellectual patterns to describe and discuss the MoQ. Are you saying that those patterns we express to discuss the MoQ here are not intellectual level patterns? 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/
