[MD] What Bo Doesn't Get

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> Evolution doesn't drive anything. It is a description of how patterns 
> adapt in response to change, flux, uncertainty; in other words dynamic 
> quality. Evolution is a reflexive process where the output of one cycle 
> becomes the input for the next.

[Mati]
Ok no argument here.

[Krimel]
So you agree that DQ is simply change and uncertainty? 

> [Krimel]
> But, if you remove the reference to evolution entirely from the statement,
> perhaps it does go without saying that the intellectual level is the
> collection of all intellectual patterns. A pattern is that which has
> extension in time. It is the encoding of experience into concepts. In that
> sense all patterns are intellectual.

[Mati]
There is an argument here.  The problem is then the intellectual level
becomes a free for all and basically anything you can think of.  

[Krimel]
Right, everything you can think of and everything anyone has ever thought of
are potentially part of the intellectual level. To actually be part of the
intellectual level as such, it must be a pattern. That is it must persist or
have extension in the temporal dimension.

[Mati]
Based on "encoding of experience into concepts" the intellectual level could
have well existed before the social level, which would defy the basic
principles of MOQ. 

[Krimel]
I don't think it is possible for intellect to precede society but if that
were the case it would indeed be a problem for the MoQ. However, we see that
the social level is primary in almost all primates and most mammals.
Intellect on the other hand only begins to show up in the great apes.

[Mati]
The point is when we discuss something that can defined metaphysically has
always come home to the S/O reality.  

[Krimel]
That does seem to be Bo's oft stated notion. It is so clearly wrong that it
is a wonder that anyone buys, much less repeats it. The MoQ is an
intellectual pattern that alleges not to be SOM as are eastern religions,
and work of any number of philosophers.

[Mati]
When you discuss something factually it requires a metaphysical basis of
understanding to provide it legitimacy.  Truth that was socially
defined required the gods for an answer, Truth intellectually speaking
required the S/O platform.  The problem was this platform was flawed
in which MOQ becomes the next better platform.

[Krimel]
Well "T"ruth is itself an intellectual pattern. Any talk of a social Truth
is just intellectualizing about the social. Social patterns are patterns of
interaction among con-specifics. Discourse about these patterns, for that
matter discourse itself, is at the intellectual level. Discourse can be
"about" anything and from any platform.

[Mati]
The metaphysical path of "encoding of experience into concepts" is a
dead end that gets nowhere metaphysically speaking in the same manner
as SOM.  Bo's simply points that out.

[Krimel]
Saying it is a dead end does not make it so. This issue of encoding and
decoding experience into concepts is fundamental to perception and
discourse. It is what we are biologically and socially equipped to do and
without it we have nothing to say no capacity to say it.

BTW, metaphysics, like physics, is mainly a matter of finding the smallest
set of concepts to account for the largest amount of experience. Static and
dynamic are two such concepts that account for a wider range of phenomena
than do subjects and objects or mind and matter.