[MD] What's missing

[Magnus Berg]

Bo

> OK, well put, but as one who deals with logic you ought to know 
> that a sub-set can't contain the whole set, Pirsig goes to great 
> lengths to point out this "container logic" 
> 
>     This problem of trying to describe value in terms of 
>     substance has been the problem of a smaller container 
>     trying to contain a larger one.  Value is not a subspecies 
>     of substance.  Substance is a subspecies of value. When 
>     you reverse the containment process and define 
>     substance in terms of value the mystery disappears: 
>     substance is a "stable pattern of inorganic values."  The 
>     problem then disappears.  The world of objects and the 
>     world of values is unified. (LILA page 68)  
> 
> Translated: The MOQ is not a subset of the intellectual level, the 
> intellectual level is a subset of the MOQ. This is so obvious that I 
> can't fathom why Pirsig made this goof. And why you back it is 
> even more mysterious. 

You're confusing the moon with "pointing at the moon" as Marsha put it. Of 
course the intellectual level is a subset of the MoQ, if we're talking about the 
MoQ as a theory, a set of ideas, a drawing of the moon. The MoQ as a theory 
starts with the DQ/SQ division, then the intellectual level is a part of SQ.

When I say that the MoQ is a set of intellectual patterns, I have drawn up the 
MoQ on a piece of paper and points at it from within the framework of the MoQ. 
The MoQ on that piece of paper is the stuff that I'm pointing at and everything 
in this universe that I can point at from within the MoQ framework *can* be put 
in first either DQ/SQ, and since it's SQ I can then put it in one (or more) of 
the 4 levels. In this case I put the words on the paper in the intellectual 
level but the paper and ink goes in the inorganic level.

You have to differentiate between the piece of paper with the MoQ written on it, 
and the MoQ framework from where you're pointing. It's perfectly alright to do 
that. Otherwise we wouldn't stand a chance talking about reality, because we're 
*inside* this reality about which we're talking. And we can't step out of that 
reality, so we have to just use what we can, i.e. an intellectual pattern, a 
framework, from where we point at the reality around us, including that 
framework. A computer might crash if it encounters infinite recursion like that, 
but we can handle it, at least I can.

What you have done is to... I don't know really... first you say that the SOM is 
the 4th level, so you write such a version of the MoQ on a piece of paper, and 
then you go away and make up a new framework, from where you're pointing at the 
paper.


> When a grown up talk to a child it is supposed to see things from 
> a higher perspective - one that the child can't reach however 
> bright - and even if this "discussion" uses a common language it 
> does not bridge the gap. Likewise one at the intellectual level 
> can't reach one at the social level. If one has decided that God 
> has created the world any reasoning from Darwin' theory is in 
> wain. Thus my lecturing from the MOQ level is wasted on you at 
> the intellectual level. ;-)       

 From where I'm standing, I think you're still stuck at that cow you mentioned 
once, was it in your Quality Event? You tried to get some kind of intellectual 
connection with the cow, but she just continued doing what cows do.

Please make an effort this time to understand what I (and Marsha) are saying. As 
it is now, we're not communicating. You don't seem to care what we're saying, 
because you think you're up there looking down at us, but if you take the time 
you might see what we're trying to say here.

>> If you don't see this difference of our views, or if you insist on
>> continuing on using your "frame of mind" view, I'm afraid we're not
>> coming any closer. I'm more interested in the lower levels, and the
>> physical/cosmological ramifications of the MoQ, but your view only
>> works for the upper levels and doesn't say much at all about the lower
>> levels. That's probably why you can't see the benefits of my view
>> about those lower levels.
> 
> The MOQ only concern itself with the metaphysics and here the 
> ramifications are enough for several lifetimes. Look, the 
> Reality=Quality postulate sets the Q levels apart from their SOM 
> namesakes. The "static inorganic patterns" has nothing to do with 
> what physics and cosmology deals with, physics is science and 
> as such an intellectual pattern and intellect MUST treat reality as 
> a subject observing objective matter.

No No No No No!! Static inorganic patterns have EVERYTHING to do with physics 
and cosmology! You're doing it again. You totally confuse "reality" with 
"pointing at reality".

Let's do this again:

When I drop a ball to the ground, the ball falls.

The ball falling is inorganic patterns affected by the inorganic pattern "gravity".

I can of course observe the ball falling and then think about how fast the ball 
should fall etc. In this case, it's me thinking about physical models and how 
they stipulate how the ball should move, and those models are intellectual 
patterns. But intellectual patterns describe things and WHAT THOSE PATTERNS 
DESCRIBE ARE INORGANIC PATTERNS!

You seem to always forget that there *is* a real ball and in our reality the 
ball does fall to the ground. You can't just ignore that. That's *not* the same 
thing as saying we're subjective minds observing an objective reality.

> Leave science to the 
> intellect, it knows best. To impose Q-versions of the scientific 
> discipline is like a Field Marshal meddling with the business of his 
> generals. We are supposed to see the great metaphysical 
> overview, at least that is what gives me the kick.          

Wow, this is really amusing to read. I think the complete opposite. I think the 
MoQ can help the old self-appointed generals of the scientific community to see 
new ways into the inexplicable nature of the new physics, specifically quantum 
physics. Next week, cosmologists will meet in London to discuss such platypi in 
physics and cosmology. I honestly think they would get some new approaches by 
the MoQ.

I don't know, but when you say "great metaphysical overview", I'm getting the 
feeling you're not seeing the word metaphysics for what it is, but some fluffy 
term used for some extremely abstract theory almost totally disconnected from 
reality.

Metaphysics is meta-physics, i.e. "about" physics. And that's how I want to use it.

>> For example, when you talk about an animal, you only think it's in its
>> biological "frame of mind", always. And that may be true for the most
>> part. BUT! your view doesn't say anything about *why* there exist
>> animals with more than one cell, neither why there exist different
>> types of animals at all. From a biological point of view, a cell is
>> all that is needed to eat and reproduce. Sure, DQ once in a while
>> steps in and puts two cells together. But if only biological urges
>> rule those two joined cells, what keeps them from reproducing
>> separately? Because that's what biological creatures do, right? In
>> your view, you simply treat this new 2-cell animal as a new animal,
>> but there's a BIG hole in that reasoning. WHY DO THEY STICK TOGETHER?
> 
> I think we agree, or that you ought to agree with me. It's exactly 
> what I say above about leaving science - in this case biology - to 
> intellect, it knows best. A Q-biology will just mess it up. MOQ's 
> great achievement is the biological LEVEL and its relationship 
> with the other LEVELS.    

And again, I see you're just giving up. If you don't think the MoQ is able to 
explain anything about neither biology nor physics better than the current 
models, why do you bother? I'm pretty confused.

But ok, as long as you keep these doubts for yourself, I'm ok with it. Just 
don't come interfere with us who want to use the MoQ for those purposes.


>> You see, when you put it this way, you must see the obvious
>> correlation between a bunch of cells and a bunch of animals or humans.
> 
> I do see the correlation between SCIENTIFIC biology and ditto 
> sociology. 

Well, since science your only view to reality, that will have to do I guess.

	Magnus