[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[Mary]

My goodness Bo!

You are confusing me.

>my point was that neither matter-as-energy nor the so-called "forces of
nature" has anything to do with MOQ's "inorganic patterns of value".
...
> What I am striving to bring across is that "nature, included forces, and 
whatever - be it ever so immaterial - is the intellectual level's 
business.

Whoa, stop, you are in time-out until you learn to behave yourself :)

Please explain what I have wrong below, for based on your statements I now
have NO understanding of the Inorganic.  Geez.  This was the one level I
thought I had nailed.

Inorganic level:  Rocks, dirt, anything that does not have DNA, or had DNA,
but is now not capable of reproduction in any way (because it is DEAD).

Biological level: Things that have DNA, can reproduce in any fashion.

Social level: The ATTITUDE that says you have no free will and should do
what your betters tell you to do.

Intellectual level: The ATTITUDE that says F.U. to the Social level.

Am I mistaken???

My Earth-centric Human brain is feeble. Let's scrap that and look at the MoQ
as an alien might.  Imagine you are from another planet.  You do not have
human assumptions.  Perhaps your species seeded the local galaxy.  You've
never heard of a Southern Baptist, Rush Limbaugh, the Heisenburg Uncertainty
Principle, or a dog.  How would you describe the levels?

We come in peace,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
skutvik at online.no
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:40 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

Hi John

2 Jan. :

Bo before
> > If you say what I believe you say, we agree. DQ will not "become
> > whatever I say it is". The known static sequence is mandatory, the
> > intellectual level could not spring out of the inorganic. And by the
> > way, this may be the reason behind much misunderstanding of the MOQ.
> > See: SOM postulates that "mind emerges from matter" and if one draws
> > a parallel here Inorganic=Matter/Intellect=Mind one gets the twisted
> > MOQ that haunts this site, namely that the 4th. level is "mind", but
> > MOQ's 1st. level is NOT matter and MOQ's 4th. level is NOT mind.

> Is energy "matter"?  Light?  Gravity?  Nope, tho E=Mc2 says they're
> related. 

No, but my point was that neither matter-as-energy nor the so-called 
"forces of nature" has anything to do with MOQ's "inorganic patterns 
of value". Pirsig was perhaps too old even when he wrote ZAMM and 
thought that the SOM's "objective horn" was the difficult one to 
overcome, but "as every schoolboy knows" these day the world of 
objects has long since dissolved. It is the "subjective temptation" 
which is MOQ's enemy, that of believing that Quantum Physics 
proves that the experimenter's mind determines the outcome ... you 
know all that New Age jazz. 

What I am striving to bring across is that "nature, included forces, and 
whatever - be it ever so immaterial - is the intellectual level's 
business. This may not be any revelation, but it seems harder to 
fathom that mind or "the spiritual" realm also is an intellectual 
creation. The moment the 4th. level arrived on the scene with the 
Greeks and began its "objective" crusade against the old Social 
(Aretê) reality which it deemed illusory - subjective - it had created the 
subject/object aggregate. The Social Age (wen it was cutting edge) 
knew no such thing.      

John:
> And the 4th level is not mind but "mindfulness". 

No, it is the Mind/Matter distinction ... the value of this .. which has 
brought modernity and prosperity to the Western World. Full stop! 
Ancient people could not be mindful before they realized that they 
had a mind that could be aware of a body and a world. This is why the 
intellectual level (science) has so much trouble with - for instance 
animals - that according to the "consciousness theory" must live in 
some slumbering state. And Steve about "unconscious copying 
behavior" regarding the social level. Consciousness is an intellectual 
"hoax".   

> However Bo, I still don't see how you can deny 4th level mindfulness
> to so-called "primitive" cultures when the people in these less
> developed societies had more time on their hands to think about
> themselves, the stars and the cosmos. ... 

I don't deny thinking, intelligence has been around since two brain 
cells started to communicate, Jeez I am the one who HAS maintained 
that ancient people were as intelligent as ourselves and constructed 
complicate cosmologies based upon their GOD-RULED premises. 
And if this s mindfulness OK, but I have the impression that it 
conveys some "I think therefore I am" i.e. intellectual load.  

> ........ Admittedly not every person in the tribe contemplates such
> things, but every tribe usually has one or two. 

;-) There surely were wiser and dumber variants, but I don't think the 
most primitive existence could afford any thinkers. And what's for 
sure is that there were no skeptics around who said "is this objectively 
true?"  

Bo before:
> > But right now the said "logic itself" has brought me some qualms: If
> > 1+1=2 is something even Quality is subordinated, then IT (logic) is
> > the most basic reality there is. This we better come to grips with.
> > What do you think .....no new levels or roamings though ;-)

> Bo and Joe and (whatever happened to WillBlake2?) oughta look into the
> logical roots of metaphysics as investigated and written by Josiah
> Royce, who spent a great deal of energy on this topic in his later
> years and came up with a buncha good stuff, way over my head (or
> inclination)

Can't you brief me on his deliberations on the "logical roots" or quote 
some passages. This has really stopped me in my track..
 
> Right now I'm too fascinated with his (Royce's) discourses on
> California History to go hunting troubles in the high country of the
> mind.  But good luck to venturesome travelers yearning for the rarer
> air.

I read Royce's on the Sacramento Valley and about his evaluation of 
himself, and I guess we all feel much of the same alienation. There 
aren't many who participate in philosophical discussions in these 
"facebook" times.

Bodvar









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/