[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

For Andre 

2 Jun.

Andre to Bodvar:
> What you keep on failing to understand Bodvar is that it is an IDEA;
> AN INTELLECTUAL PATTERN OF VALUE. A very high quality one but
> nevertheless an idea. 
 
The MOQ is an "intellectual" pattern in SOM where the term intellect 
means mind  In the MOQ however the 4th level is the S/O distinction. 
That you are stuck in SOM yet committed to Quality reasoning and 
consequently fall flat on your face again and again is quite a (slapstick) 
show.    

Andre? 
> And if the inorganic "level" is the set of inorganic patterns and the
> biological level is the set of biological patterns and the social
> level is the set of social patterns; why is there resistance to the
> notion that the intellectual level is the set of intellectual
> patterns?

No one "resists" that the intellectual level is the set of intellectual 
patterns. It's just you - dead-locked in SOM where "intellect" has come 
to mean MIND - who screws up the 4th. level. "Has come to mean" I 
say because it's not even correct that intellect means the realm of 
ideas, my trusted Oxford Advanced defines the term as the ability to 
distinguish between what's objective and what's subjective i.e. SOL   

Bodvar

PS:
Krimel.
> I don't think "skillful" manipulation has anything to do with it. Bad
> ideas are just as much a part of the intellectual "level" as good ones.
> Patterns are patterns. "Good" paintings hang in the gallery right next to
> "bad" ones. Our job are "art critics" is to decide for ourselves which is
> which.

So much for the Andre-Krimel "entente", and I agree, the 
"manipulation of symbols" is a blind alley, but Krimel's further 
observations are nonsense. There are not any god/bad inside a level 
only simple/complex. A bacteria isn't "bad" biology , and a tribe isn't 
bad society only simpler patterns. But biology is bad morality to social 
morality.