Marco and Group ...a comment for Wavedave.
Wow, spending half the night writing to this forum! But the result
was a very weighty piece which I have read most thoroughly. I can't
reply to it all - not necessary to comment the parts I agree with. As
usual I zoom in on the points where our disagreement shows up.
But first a few small things. You wrote:
> According to my MOQ understanding, the use of the word "level" seems
> a little bit confused.
> Sometime we tend to use "level" as a simple class of similar
> patterns, where that "similar" is seemingly meaning "made of (or
> competing for) similar values". Otherwise we use "level" to mean the
> "space" where similar patterns are acting. I prefer to use the word
> "environment" for it. Finally it's also common to use "level" to
> mean the "time" where a certain class of patterns are leading the
> evolution. In this sense, it's maybe better to use the word "era".
Yes, I agree. It's troublesome. An example is our ongoing Giant
discussion. Personally I want all levels to be boiled down to some
very essential value, the social to "our cause" (cosa nostra!). The
patterns built by this basic urge are so diversified that its hopeless
to list them.
"Environment" for the level and "era" for the time of its supremacy,
why not? I have used the era term many times.
> Copernican and Ptolemaian systems are both at the same level, or not? I
> don't deny the novelty of MOQ. It can be a revolution, even within its own
> level.
Of course, but it's such a good metaphor. But then over to the
more serious matters. Re. the MOQ as a revolution within intellect
it's just too much of a revolution to be contained by that level, that I
will try to show.
> But your conclusion:
> > Now the
> > quality idea is born in the intellectual era, as an advanced
> > intellectual tool, and will eventually outgrow its parent level to
> > become a value of its own some day.
> is not necessary. Everything works also remaining within the intellectual
> level.
Allow me a (last) go at this point which I take to be the gist of our
disagreement. I have maintained that the MOQ by pointing to the
intellect cannot be a mere intellectual pattern itself. It must be a
bordercase. Due to this I have protested the tendency to visualize
the intellect as a realm of ideas: MOQ one idea, SOM another,
along with theological discourses on number of angels on pinheads
etc.
Another thing. It is impossible to find some common denominator
for such a level except "mind" and if the mind/matter division is
lifted as the basic split of reality mind can't return in full force.
Another worry of mine is that there's no escape from such an
intellect: everything will be ideas forever.
I'll try a new angle to this problem (and a possible reconciliation of
our two "intellects"?): Let's take an experimental step backwards in
time to the era when social value was top notch. The cave dwellers
spoke, no doubt, but language was in the service of the social
reality not much used to pursue intellectual discussions if the
heavenly bodies were gods or had some "objective" nature.
OK, lets introduce an (impossible) contemporary MOF and one
member of the group (Boar:) claiming that the utterings of their
prophet - the ostracized "madman" Phaidros - that the sun was no
god but a star (along with the scientific explanation) meant a new
value level. The other members said that there was no need to
speak of any new level, it was merely another social pattern. A
good explanation, but just another STORY. The two parties would
be right from their respective vantage points. Everything is own
value from any levels' point of view. To inorganic value everything is
matter...etc so to those focussed in social value Phaidros' "star"
was another myth. Boar, who sensed a new attitude in Phaidros'
ravings, had already entered what was to become intellect. Social
value would - in due time - be transgressed, but to see it as
transgression you had to be part of the movement. Back at the
social point of view his adversaries would not recognize the new
attitude as anything else than a mere new myth.
You will see that I have cast myself in the hero's role: a pioneer of
a new "environment" fighting the - now - intellectual tendency to
see everything from intellect's point of view. The social giant isn't
much of a challenge these days, it is the tentacles of intellect that
are invisible and dangerous.
> I'm tired. It's 2:15 A.M. And I could be wrong. Sometimes I ask myself why
> I'm here. Then I ask myself: what is this "I" who is here?
I think it is not all intellectual Marco, but quality Marco..... who
senses a possible liberation from intellect.
> time to sleep.
Sleep? Another great mystery.
End of message
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
