[MD] Re Proposed solution to SOL/Intellectual level

[John Carl]

> Any static level is  the result of a dynamic flight AWAY from the
> former. Whether this is "top driven" or not?
>
>
When a leaf assmilates minerals into its being, it's not fleeing away from
inorganic patterns, it's creatively reformulating these patterns into higher
levels of being.  That's not "flight away", that's  the evolutionary forces
of the cosmos (natural selection) at work.



. MOQ's "intellectual level" is STATIC and therefore supposed to
> be definable and the only definition that holds water is the S/O one.
>


I disagree.  The patterns that comprise the 4th level are static patterns,
but the level itself is obviously undefinable because there is no way to
"cap it off".  The level cannot ever be said to encapsulate all possible
static intellectual patterning.  You can dance as many angels on the head of
the pin as you want and there's always room for more.


> The point is, you can't envision any sort of upper limit because each
> > objectification of reality, higher quality than the last, points to
> > more.
>
> That's true and may be valid for Peck's and is the result of the said
> fallacious "mind-intellect", but not for MOQ's 4th STATIC level. Why
> anyone sees this as a solution of anything is beyond me.
>


Ah, well my doddering dear Uncle, "beyond you" is no refutation  of truth.
:-)

Refer back to my clarification of your confusion (and Magnus's) that the 4th
level itself is NOT defineable and not static and everything should be
clear.



>
> > That leads to the idea for me in MoQ terms, that the upper limit of
> > intellectual formulation is indefinable.
>
> Well, then I count you among the other anti-moqists of this site.
>


Dang.  Does this mean I'm stuck in Kindergarten for another term?


John Prev:


> > Royce is really helping too with his logical system which takes a
> > convergent, infinite series and make a higher order leap to "see" in
> > the same way we all see that 1.999999999999 is actually two. And how
> > does this all tie in to DQ and it's sq formulations?
>


 Bo:



> I try my best to tune in on your wavelength, but it's impossible to
> fathom what this is supposed to solve.
>


It's a proven logical technique for solving the problem of defining the
indefinable.  And I can't picture you grasping it quickly....

How long have you been here?  How much have you grasped so far?




> The MOQ is out of SOM



I have no idea what this even means.  Saying it repetitively doesn't clear
much up either.



> and in that process the SOM is made into its
> 4th. level. Another thing, the MOQ is the DQ/SQ configuration,




> DQ is
> nothing (literally) in itself.



I see.  You posit nothingness as fundamental in the same way Arlo and Krimel
posit randomness.  You're all part of the MOron-ist cult, trying to push
your agenda through  differing means.

It's coming clear now.



Still another thing, this" MOQ-out-of-SOM"
> tenet creates a level-like relationship between the intellectual level and
> the MOQ and as is the rule here the upper shies its origin, so what the
> MOQ is NOT is intellectual.
>
> Bodvar
>
>

In your view Bo, nothing is intellectual because you assert that nothing is
"literally" everything.

MoQist to moRoNist,  Hello-o-o-o.


John




>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>