Re: LS Denis is a Genius and the Net is the new Agora

[B. Skutvik]

BO DRONES ON AND HAS REACHED MARCO'S POST 
OF 17 SEPTEMBER, WHEREIN WAS WRITTEN:

(If anyone wonders about these silly headlines it is a tradition 
started in LS' bronze age by Roger Palmer ..or was it Donny 
Palmgren?)

Marco and Lila Squadders

I join you in your praise of Denis, but his language revelation isn't
that original. It has been raised many times before as some important
crossover between Society and Intellect, but he did it in a most
coherent way. 

(NB. The 'Q' is a little cumbersome, so when I use a capital letter at
the various levels it means the same thing. While 'intellect'
and/or'society' is the traditional variant)

What you write about the Gospel is important. The Creation and 
particularly the Fall myth shows what an important role the Christian 
religion relegates to the "awakening of the moral sense". This has 
been up before, but is worth a separate monthly discussion.

> English colonizers forced Indians to English Language
> just trying to control their culture: if Language is the DNA of culture,
> they tried ...  a genetic manipulation!.

Great! That must be noted.

But best of all did I like this your paragraph.

(Denis)
> > The Q-Intellect as I see it now is the ecosystem in which
> > competing metaphysics vie for dominance, just as different species
> > vie for resources in Earth biosphere. The most dynamic ones make
> > it to the top, the others don't.
 
> I want to joke (sorry, BO!)

Don't worry I'm impervious :-)
 
> Maybe the main point is to persuade Bo to this conclusion. But I
> begin to understand him:  if SOM is "only" an intPoV, and MOQ is
> "only" another one, what will happen  when the fifth level will
> rise? Our intellectual pattern, our metaphysics, our MOQ,  will
> combat it , and we will be on the wrong side

You seem to see the problem with Intellect as a MENTAL cup (Magnus) 
or an ecosystem (Denis) where different metaphysics slosh around 
and/or vie for dominance. Different species aren't different LIFE, 
but SOM and MOQ are incompatible. Highligted in this entence .

>  if SOM is "only" an intPoV, and MOQ is
> "only" another one, what will happen  when the fifth level will
> rise? Our intellectual pattern, our metaphysics, our MOQ,  will
> combat it , and we will be on the wrong side

YES! That's why I so badly want to see the Quality idea as a movement 
beyond Intellect. Allow me to pursue the evolutionary development 
seen in the SOLAQI light. It sort of requires that each level once 
were its ages' metaphysics=ALL THERE IS, and that the former was 
degraded once a new level came of age (To speak of the Inorganic as a 
metaphysics a bit weird but note that the physical/mental is no part 
of the MOQ). All right, once Biology had established itself it became 
ALL THERE IS, and the Inorganic were degraded into food or material 
for life. When Society spread itself on top of it, it became ALL 
THERE IS (we have reached agreement that any level is oblivious of 
any movement above itself) and Biology was degraded to "members" who 
were supposed to sacrifice themselves for the good of the many. As 
Intellect took over evolution's baton IT became ALL THERE IS (SOM) 
and Society was stripped of all honours and hardly tolerated (Ref. 
LILA about Intellect's contempt for Society).

And now the strength of the SOM=Intellect idea shows. As you point out
if the MENTAL/MIND image of Intellect is maintained where various
metaphysics reside there is no way forward. Nothing can surpass such a
value level! But the main MOQ tenet is that DQ never rests and will
try to break loose from its latest static latch, and use it for its 
own purpose: as its own servant/material. It is fully possible 
to break loose from the SOM-Intellect; the subject/object metaphysics 
is then stripped of its ALL THERE IS epaulettes and degraded into 
subject/object logic or SO-intelligence: a high value but not 
REALITY itself!

To break from SOm's prison is to me the enormous potential of 
the MOQ that - a decade after LILA's publication - still gives 
me the thrills, and why I am so Jesuitic in my exorcism of the MIND
interpretation of Intellect. Something that turns it into a trite
spiritual theory. To prove that everything is (in the) mind - or 
that language is IT ALL - is child's play if you accept the 
mind/matter metaphysics in the first place.

Bo


PS
I would have liked to say something about your interesting 
Sophist observations, but  


["Quality isn't IN the eye of the beholder. 
 Quality IS the eye of the beholder". 
 (Platt Holden)]




MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org

LS Denis is a Genius and the Net is the new Agora

[Marco]

Denis, Bo and LS,

Language?

LANGUAGE!

L A N G U A G E 

this was the missing piece in my puzzle! It's incredible: I didn't see
it, and I use it every time.

I 've read Denis' post one, two, three times and I was ... without words!

I understand why Denis writes:

> Wow. Cool down Denis.

and it's really smart DLT's answer:

> You nailed it! End of thread! Break's over, go back to your school work.

but... End of thread?

Denis ended with two questions, so maybe we must go on.

Let's read again some part of Denis' post, and try to answer.


> One recurring problem we seem to see in those discussions is the nature
> of the levels. [...]
>  as Pirsig pointed
> out, each level interacts with the others.
>
> It doesn't mean that the levels are ontological "things", that then
> interact with one another.
>
> No, it means that whenever you try to describe something, you leave
> something out. That the reality we try to describe is made of
> interlocking patterns, which complexities are beyond anyone's abilities
> to completely unravel (that's the positivists' illusion). No perfect
> metaphysics.
>

I agree. No perfect metaphysics.
I think MOQ requires  this little effort to us, western people:  we
must live with a continual doubt about truth, opinion, ... about everything.
Doubts are necessary if you want to be Dynamic.

> [...] the IntPoVs I'm about
> to present are *tricks* (good ones I hope) to get things done (like
> convincing you I'm right ;),

I found in these words something like I 've said in my post:  at the
Intellectual level the competition is often to obtain Agreement.

> I want to say that as Bo points out,
> societies aren't composed of individuals any more than Q-Intellect is
> composed of societies. Societies are composed of behaviours, which are
> biological, and which are a support for new patterns, social patterns.
>
> In this way, just as DNA molecules carry biological informations, giving
> birth to the bio level, the repetitive patterns of behaviour carry
> social information, then giving birth to societies.

> [...] The reason I cannot think of SOM as being equal to the Q-Intellect
is
> that it is already too perfect, too developped to be a good candidate
> for the post. So I've got to find a good (even if it's a little loosely
> defined) one. Language seems to be such a candidate for many people.
> [...]
> human language is inherently dynamic, able to mutate and to
> evolve ON ITS OWN, while it is static with animals, only evolving when
> the animals themselves evolve.

If I understand ... the birth of intellectual level was evoked by societies,
to become more competitive. Individuals begun to use a simple language, for
example in an initial form of sound signals, to communicate dangers, or
attack strategies. In that phase this simple "animal language" was only a
"strange", dynamic social pattern; but language is ... alive. In one
particular animal, MAN, evolved to words, opinions, philosophies... and to
cave pictures, arts, science, technology... in one word: Intellect.

Then all these .. adult intellectual patterns, begun two different wars: on
one
side to get free,  the clash against society; on the other side,  to obtain
Agreement, each one against the others.

This vision makes me remember the beginning of JOHN'S GOSPEL:
"In principio era il Verbo" (sorry, in Italian!). The Italian word "Verbo",
is  your English "Word". If I remember well, in greek original version of
Gospel "Verbo" was LOGOS.  LoGos, LanGuage...   maybe the meaning is just
that Language was the beginning of ... Intellectual level? Sorry, I'm
running away.

In my first post of this month  I made a mistake talking about school. I've
said that school is the "conjunction" between social and intellectual,
meaning that social level creates intellectual level through school  but
the idea of  Language is ... better.

On the contrary, school is a social pattern created within societies  to
CONTROL Intellect. At school the first thing you learn is the Language of
your Nation.
Schools usually force students to learn one only language,
eliminating all dialects, or foreign Languages. Ah! the Church of Reason!

In fact...

> In other words, what we have here is the
> emergence of a new level, which isn't social (when the Indians were
> forced to learn English they didn't start acting like Europeans).
> It does seem promising for the Intellectual level, doesn't it ?

> But then, language isn't the same as the Intellectual level. It would be
> like saying that DNA *is* the Biological level. It isn't. DNA is a
> molecule. Combined with RNA and other molecules, and contained within a
> cell it is able to replicate itself and evolve, it's the biological
> information carrier (pattern-carrier if you want), but it's not
> Q-Biology.
>

English colonizers forced Indians to English Language
just trying to control their culture: if Language is the DNA of culture,
they tried ...  a genetic manipulation!.

> If language conve