[MD] Where does the MOQ belong?

[Akshay Peshwe]

I believe a book on philosophy is purely an inorganic pattern of static
quality. However, it seems to be at the intellectual level because it is
stimulating an intellectual pattern. The papers are not, per se,
intellectual patterns -- for a person who didn't know about books but did
have stable intellectual patterns wouldn't recognize the book as
intellectual patterns.

I do however have doubt as to where we can put consciousness or awareness.
That "feeling" of awareness. I suppose it could be classified as
intellectual, but aren't there humans who hardly have any intellectual
patterns, being based predominantly in social patterns, but are still
conscious? Probably consciousness means the ability to analyse one's
condition, which is a characteristic of intellectual patterns. But what
about "raw" consciousness -- the consciousness that tells someone "I am
Peter"?

I'm a new member, and a teenager, so I'd request you to forgive my
ignorance... I'm really enjoying the forums right now. Thanks everyone!


Akshay


On 3/31/07, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>
> Magnus and Multitude
>
> I changed the thread title..
>
> On 28 March you wrote
>
> > 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.
>
> I understand your exasperation over me not seeing the obvious,
> that the MOQ is a theory which (to you) means taking place in the
> mind which (to you) is "intellect". But my constant retort is: What
> about theories - sets of ideas - that people made about reality
> BEFORE the intellectual level, were those "intellectual patterns"?
> There was such a time no? Even if the Ancients didn't have
> paper to draw on, I guess it isn't the graphics which is your point,
> an audio version of the MOQ would be as much intellect as
> different from the said "framework from where you point". Think
> about it.
>
> Bo
>
> PS
> Our discussion about the MOQ and the Sciences I put into a new
> thread.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>