I'd just like to add a few thoughts to this. 1. We are not only "inside" reality and can't see it from the "outside" (whatever that is), but we are also "inside" our own intellect and therefore we can never come up with a complete self-map (as in a map of our intellect). Refer to Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Godel Escher Bach by Douglas R Hofstadter for more.
2. About the map-of-reality vs reality dichotomy itself: I see no way to actually come up with this distinction. There is a thin thread of subject-object metaphysics going through this here. The only way we know reality is by the map. Hence the "reality" is only a deduced entity. 3. Is the MoQ still open to change? I think that there might be a level of evolution (or more than one) beyond the intellectual level before approaching pure Dynamic Quality. Maybe spiritual? What if one can get into an enlightened level and latch on? Is that even possible? 4. I think science (as it is known today) is only a *type* of intellectual patterns. What about ghost stories? They are still explanations about reality, and hence intellectual patterns. I suppose you could say anything that fits into a formal system (refer to Godel Escher Bach again) can be called intellectual patterns. Akshay On 4/2/07, Mati Palm-Leis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Magnus, > > You wrote: > You're confusing the moon with "pointing at the moon" as Marsha put it. Of > course the intellectual level is a subset of the MoQ, if we're talking > about > the MoQ as a theory, a set of ideas, a drawing of the moon. The MoQ as a > theory starts with the DQ/SQ division, then the intellectual level is a > part > of SQ. > > Mati: Hmmmmmm.... Ok I see that there are a number of issues here with the > largest being the assumption of what the static intellect values are and > where they came from. Your and Marsha's idea that MOQ is included as an > intellect based pattern is very valid given the broad basis from which > Pirsig and others have approached defining intellect. But perhaps this is > further evidence that there might be flaw. Flaw......now there is a word > that strikes a chord in my thoughts. I apologize for a minor digression, > but > today was listening to one of my favorite albums by Mark Knopfler, Rag > Pickers Dream. In the song called Mulligan Stew it goes, > > "Everything was in there that you would want to see, corn beef and onions > and true love, Turnip and a tin of tomatoes, parsnips and a few potatoes, > a > couple extra blessing from above. Now this here mingo mango was my best > one > yet. A big ole bad goulash worth waiting for. I'm just about to dip my > can, > taste some brotherhood of man, when I get a feeling that there is a > flaw..... > Who put ole pigweed in the Mulligan Stew, what it you? Who put ole pigweed > in the Mulligan Stew?" > > The reason this verse struck me is that the pigweed here in this > discussion > is the SOM perspective. It is the weed that Pirsig so eloquently captured > in > ZMM and laid to rest in LILA. Yet it is a perspective tends to find it's > way back into the philosophical stew, and specifically here in the > philosophical perspective of intellect. I would suggest that the broad > perspective from intellect has been defined allow room for ole pigweed > back > into the stew. And perhaps the basis for disagreement between you and > Bodvar. > > You continue: > Otherwise we wouldn't stand a chance talking about reality, because we're > *inside* this reality about which we're talking. And we can't step out of > that reality, so we have to just use what we can, i.e. an intellectual > pattern, a framework, from where we point at the reality around us, > including that framework. > > Mati: Well said, our capacity to be reflective has serve mankind well, > without it intellect would have not been born or exist. But let's reflect > a > little deeper, and ask what the basis for the static intellectual patterns > is. > > Again you continue: > >From where I'm standing, I think you're still stuck at that cow you > mentioned once, was it in your Quality Event? You tried to get some kind > of > intellectual connection with the cow, but she just continued doing what > cows > do. > > Mati: As a son of a dairy farmer, I must admit I had a similar question as > a > child. But that as I have become older I like to think I have become > wiser. > You see this question of any connection with the cow is a valid > philosophical question for a child. Yet the answer to that very simple > question can only be considered when one utilizes a MOQ perspective, this > points to the flaw of SOM perspective that even children learn. > > > The dialoge Bodvar: > > The MOQ only concern itself with the metaphysics and here the > > ramifications are enough for several lifetimes. Look, the > > Reality=Quality postulate sets the Q levels apart from their SOM > > namesakes. The "static inorganic patterns" has nothing to do with > > what physics and cosmology deals with, physics is science and > > as such an intellectual pattern and intellect MUST treat reality as > > a subject observing objective matter. > > Magnus: > No No No No No!! Static inorganic patterns have EVERYTHING to do with > physics and cosmology! You're doing it again. You totally confuse > "reality" > with "pointing at reality". > > Let's do this again: > > When I drop a ball to the ground, the ball falls. > > The ball falling is inorganic patterns affected by the inorganic pattern > "gravity". > > I can of course observe the ball falling and then think about how fast the > ball should fall etc. In this case, it's me thinking about physical models > and how they stipulate how the ball should move, and those models are > intellectual patterns. But intellectual patterns describe things and WHAT > THOSE PATTERNS DESCRIBE ARE INORGANIC PATTERNS! > > You seem to always forget that there *is* a real ball and in our reality > the > > ball does fall to the ground. You can't just ignore that. That's *not* the > same thing as saying we're subjective minds observing an objective > reality. > > Mati: Hmmmmmmm.... Ok. > > Bodvar: > Leave science to the intellect, it knows best. To impose Q-versions of the > scientific discipline is like a Field Marshal meddling with the business > of > his generals. We are supposed to see the great metaphysical overview, at > least that is what gives me the kick. > > Magnus: > Wow, this is really amusing to read. I think the complete opposite. I > think > the MoQ can help the old self-appointed generals of the scientific > community > to see new ways into the inexplicable nature of the new physics, > specifically quantum physics. Next week, cosmologists will meet in London > to > discuss such platypi in physics and cosmology. I honestly think they would > get some new approaches by the MoQ. > > Mati: I would like to share your optimism, but as they take one look at > the > intellect static patterns they will dismiss the philosophical implications > of MOQ, at least anybody with a bit of philosophical savvy. The big > problem > is that Science has all but divorced themselves from a philosophical > perspective, because science has advance to such a degree that the SOM > perspective that gave birth to science becomes a invalid perspective from > which to view reality today. Yet they are so deep into the science that > now > scientific advances have raised some pretty deep philosophical questions > without a clue as what to do. I couldn't agree with you more that MOQ must > take a root in the sciences, all sciences. > > Magnus: > I don't know, but when you say "great metaphysical overview", I'm getting > the feeling you're not seeing the word metaphysics for what it is, but > some > fluffy term used for some extremely abstract theory almost totally > disconnected from reality. > > Metaphysics is meta-physics, i.e. "about" physics. And that's how I want > to > use it. > > Mati: I would suggest that might be a somewhat constraining approach. I > have collect a number of dictionaries over the years and here is my > favorite > definition for Metaphysics; > > Metaphysics, so called because the name was posthumously give to > Aristotle's > "First Philosophy" which he wrote after his Physics. The speculation which > deals with the first principles of existence, such as, being, substance, > essence, the infinite, ultimate reality, etc.; the philosophy of being and > knowing; the philosophy which establishes truth of existence by abstract > reason. > > I think it works pretty good as definitions go. > > Bodvar > > I think we agree, or that you ought to agree with me. It's exactly > > what I say above about leaving science - in this case biology - to > > intellect, it knows best. A Q-biology will just mess it up. MOQ's > > great achievement is the biological LEVEL and its relationship > > with the other LEVELS. > > Magnus: > And again, I see you're just giving up. If you don't think the MoQ is able > to explain anything about neither biology nor physics better than the > current models, why do you bother? I'm pretty confused. > > Mati: From my very limited perspective I think you both are splitting the > same hair. > > Bodvar: > >> You see, when you put it this way, you must see the obvious > >> correlation between a bunch of cells and a bunch of animals or humans. > > > > I do see the correlation between SCIENTIFIC biology and ditto > > sociology. > > Magnus: > Well, since science your only view to reality, that will have to do I > guess. > > Mati: > Bodvar, say it isn't so!!!! ;-) > > Mati > > > 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/ > 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/
