It's hard to keep up here. I get busy with other things for a few days and get
hopelessly behind.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Let's stick to the general tenet about a pattern of the old level
> becoming the stepping stone for the new. Pirsig points to carbon
> as that of biology, but even so carbon itself remains inorganic.
> You and I seem to agree on the said neural complexity as the
> stepping stone for social value, but like always the "stepping
> stone" remains behind (brains are biology).
I don't think we can say that "carbon itself remains inorganic" because carbon
has biological value for carbon based life forms. It's yet another *thing* that
points to the difference in the SOM division of the world and the MoQ levels.
>> I tend to think that intellectual patterns is the only level that can
>> represent other patterns of any level, including intellectual
>> patterns.
>
> That long did my contentment last? Again this impossible
> intellectual level that can "represent other patterns ...etc." When
> did anyone before Pirsig speak of Q-patterns? Never, because
> there was only SOM and its mind-intellect surely represented
> (contained) the whole world. This mind-intellect "dragged and
> dropped" inside the MOQ spoils it.
>
> For the nth time, the 4th level is static and will have to have a
> fixed repertoire, besides like all the previous level shifts: The
> intellectual pattern that became the stepping stone of the MOQ
> will remain intellectual (SOM) till kingdom comes. To stick to a
> mind-intellect is like insisting that carbon is life
Fixed repertoire? Not if you want to map SOM things to levels. Also, I can
agree
to some extent that SOM is an intellectual pattern. And even if it's a very
large and complex set of patterns, it doesn't fill up the intellectual level by
even a fraction. So to say that SOM *is* the whole intellectual level is a
pretty big leap. I would say that the MoQ is also an intellectual pattern. It's
an idea, an abstract description of something else. Everything that is an
abstract description of something else *is* an intellectual pattern.
> Another thing. All intellectual patterns that Pirsig pointed to in
> LILA are invariably S/O-patterned, this ought to have sounded
> "bells and whistles", but he had somehow started on the wrong
> foot and was not able to correct it. In the Paul Turner letter he
> admits the error of the mind-intellect and his new "manipulation
> of symbol" definition could have helped if he had emphasized the
> "symbol/what it symbolizes" distinction, but alas
Is this letter on Moq.org? I'll try to find it.
> OK, but if so (an expanded definition of) language replaces
> Quality. The storage of past experience as neural patterns is
> biological language-value. "How intellect skips the social level ...
> IN BRAINS"? Brain is biology, but you probably mean "why SOM
> has "mind-out-of-matter", and that I agree with, all the more so
> because it proves that you too sees SOM as intellect.
No, I mean that the brain supports, and contains, intellectual patterns.
And what is "biological language-value"? Biology doesn't value language, it can
live on perfectly fine without it. It's when several cells wants to cooperate
to
form a larger "animal" that they need language to cooperate in their newly
founded social "society". This language is later used when the animal gets too
big and needs a neural network to control its muscles. And when this neural
network is large enough, we call it a brain.
> Please give me some examples non-S/O intellect-
As Pirsig described in ZMM, the pre-Plato Sophists seemed to use a non-S/O
based
world view. Buddhism and native american indians are probably also pretty far
outside S/O thinking.
On the other hand, we don't have to get so theoretical about it. A shopping
list
is intellectual patterns and doesn't rely on S/O thinking to be understood.
>> We still use intellectual patterns to
>> describe and discuss the MoQ.
>
> As said above: Only the MOQ enables us to discuss the level
> aspect of existence. Not from one of its sub-sets.
>
>> Are you saying that those patterns we
>> express to discuss the MoQ here are not intellectual level patterns?
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I say.
I disagree. Would the MoQ be some kind of 5th level then? And what
distinguishes
that level from the 4th? What more patterns of this 5th level can you find?
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/
