[MD] Food for Thought

[Joseph Maurer]

On Thurs 11 January 2007 12:58 PM Laird writes to Joe

> [Joe]
> Once abstraction occurs you then have a symbol which you can manipulate.
>
>
[Laird]
Rather than abstraction, I think it's the "you" in the "you can
manipulate" above which starts that body/soul split.


Hi Laird,

[Joe]

When I use 'you' in that way it is an analogy for proprietary awareness. 
Perhaps 'one' would be a better term. My awareness of abstraction is taken 
from Aristotle who posited a split in existence 'intentional' existence and 
'real' existence. The symbol abstracted actually was the essence of the 
object being looked at. This presupposed a mind, in a body/soul split.

> [Joe]
> The difficulty I see is that in no way can
> the body do the abstraction. So you have a body/soul split and the 
> mind/will
> are faculties of the soul.
>>
[Laird]
There's no mind doing the manipulation at all. What you say next is very
much on-the-mark and leads me into explaining the "no mind" part:

> [Joe]
> In experience instead of abstraction for knowledge the symbol becomes a
> pattern.
>
>
[Laird]
Our language makes this hard to say in a non-causal way... but here
goes. DQ and static patterns manipulate symbols, which are patterns
representative of static patterns. Sometimes these manipulations are
like "soft links" by which the symbol-pattern changes but not the
source-pattern... at other times they are like "hard links" by which a
source-pattern changes through manipulation of a symbol-pattern. This is
the ground-stuff of recursive symbol manipulation and all the magic
which drives us to create concepts such as "mind".


[Joe]

IMO DQ does not manipulate symbols. DQ is an analogy for movement between 
moral levels which seems to be looking at existence from a different 
perspective. How? Laws in existence! Experience of static patterns provides 
a template for a word. With further experience the template can change and 
words evolve in meaning. When the next level 'intellect' proposes laws 
between symbols, then the symbols are connected.

> [Joe]
> For a pattern to have a moral excellence over a lower pattern IMO
> it must exist differently-dimensions in existence not dimensions in the 
> mind
> or intellect. An enlightened person exists differently than a
> rock-evolution. I prefer to see the experience of evolution as an 
> experience
> of laws in existence which are accepted as 'givens', so we can get on with
> the conversation.
>
>
[Laird]
You're jumping between empiricism above to existentialism and then
empiricism again, and these sentences just aren't fitting comfortably
together in my head. I'll wait for you to take another shot at the idea
if you want to discuss it further.
-Laird


[Joe]

A dimension is an empirical symbol. Empirically are there higher and lower 
dimensions? IMO a moral order is analogous to dimensions, dimensions in 
existence. One is measured apart from the other. The bite in moral levels is 
from a relationship of necessity. The higher level has to embrace the 
existence of the lower level. The law maker (intellectual level) operates at 
a higher level from proprietary awareness (social level) a lower level, and 
exists in a divided awareness s/o from the thrust of evolution to go beyond 
the intellectual level to enlightenment.

It is difficult to capture in words how the existence of the inorganic level 
is necessary for all the levels to exist. The law of gravity, intellectual 
level, is applicable to all levels. E.g. if the law of gravity is considered 
a superstition by the law giver, all levels lose integrity. Perhaps the 
symbols of experience, though they can be altered....., I am not clear. 
Maybe later.

-Joe


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laird Bedore" <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Food for Thought


> Hi Joe,
>
>>> [Joe, previously]
>>> IMO the intellect as a knife is a difficult analogy to understand. The
>>> intellect evolving from the social level as a law-giver, seems more
>>> fitting
>>> to the intellect's role, rather than as an independent butcher of all
>>> levels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> [Laird, previously]
>> I don't think the two analogies are exclusive - it's not a "pick just
>> one" type thing... One analogy describes intellect's 'behaviour' (awful
>> term for it though) while the other describes its origins. Two
>> orthogonal viewpoints of the same thing.
>>
>> The "intellect as a knife" analogy isn't complete, though. The knife
>> just cuts experience/reality into pieces. Intellect then treats each
>> piece as a symbol. It can manipulate those symbols, shuffling them
>> around, comparing one to another, stacking them up in hierarchies of
>> symbols - symbols of symbols, recursive-like, putting them into more
>> complex relationships. Putting the 'knife' along with symbol
>> manipulation makes for a very powerful analogy.
>>
>> -Laird
>>
>> [Joe]
>> Hi Laird and all,
>>
>> As you describe the analogy "intellect as a knife" it seems you are back
>> into knowledge as abstraction.
>>
>> [Joe]
>> Once abstraction occurs you then have a symbol which you can manipulate.
>>
>>
> [Laird]
> Rather than abstraction, I think it's the "you" in the "you can
> manipulate" above which starts that body/soul split.
>
>
>> [Joe]
>> The difficulty I see is that in no way can
>> the body do the abstraction. So you have a body/soul split and the 
>> mind/will
>> are faculties of the soul.
>>
>>
> [Laird]
> There's no mind doing the manipulation at all. What you say next is very
> much on-the-mark and leads me into explaining the "no mind" part:
>
>> [Joe]
>> In experience instead of abstraction for knowledge the symbol becomes a
>> pattern.
>>
>>
> [Laird]
> Our language makes this hard to say in a non-causal way... but here
> goes. DQ and static patterns manipulate symbols, which are patterns
> representative of static patterns. Sometimes these manipulations are
> like "soft links" by which the symbol-pattern changes but not the
> source-pattern... at other times they are like "hard links" by which a
> source-pattern changes through manipulation of a symbol-pattern. This is
> the ground-stuff of recursive symbol manipulation and all the magic
> which drives us to create concepts such as "mind".
>
>
>> [Joe]
>> For a pattern to have a moral excellence over a lower pattern IMO
>> it must exist differently-dimensions in existence not dimensions in the 
>> mind
>> or intellect. An enlightened person exists differently than a
>> rock-evolution. I prefer to see the experience of evolution as an 
>> experience
>> of laws in existence which are accepted as 'givens', so we can get on 
>> with
>> the conversation.
>>
>>
> [Laird]
> You're jumping between empiricism above to existentialism and then
> empiricism again, and these sentences just aren't fitting comfortably
> together in my head. I'll wait for you to take another shot at the idea
> if you want to discuss it further.
>
> Cheers,
> -Laird
>
>
> 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/
>