[MD] skutvic and corteen teach each other

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Peter
 
On 24 Nov. you  wrote:

> I am relieved that you agree that quality cannot manifest without the
> inorganic and you go on to say further that "Quality's first
> manifestation was/is the inorganic level"; you add weight to the
> Krimel's assertions about a 'Top Down Fallacy'. 

I'm not able to follow all posts hardly those that are directed my way. 
Could you please brief me what Krimel's point is, or show me the post 
that conveys it.

> Straying for a moment from your SOLAQI notion though, there is another
> conundrum here in that as quality gets, for want of a better word,
> digested by the upper levels it results in increasingly intentional
> action that creates new value ultimately reshaping the inorganic,
> alluded to by Gav in that thread. 

A most intricate point. First society and biology  The social level 
utilized (while it was leading edge) the biological level by domesticating 
and breeding animals, plants .. etc. but this can hardly be called 
"reshaping" After intellect "digested" society nothing much changed in 
this respect until recently with knowledge of the genetic code, this may 
- perhaps - become reshaping.

Regarding the inorganic I can't see anything more than the said 
utilization by biology using the inorganic patterns for its own purpose. 
Society's digestion of biology did perhaps extended the utilization to 
exploitation and intellect's on top of society ever more advanced 
exploitation, but reshape? Not the way I see it. Perhaps Gav had some 
more subtle arguments.

> I guessed that English wasn't your first language. Strictly speaking
> I'm a European too but not from the mainland. I'm glad you didn't take
> offence and can now say I think I'm improving at translating what you
> mean when you discuss these convoluted ideas.

Good! 
 
> You paraphrased my original question about cats but even then you do
> not give a straight yes or no; are you a Zen monk?
 
> You then said that "Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part
> of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter
> where the 'self-awareness'  term - not belong - but was CREATED". I
> surmise that you mean no! And further your statement suggests to me
> you think both the social and intellectual levels of the MoQ relate
> only to humans. Also it seems to me from your statement that you think
> the term 'self-awareness' is linked to the use of language; if the cat
> could refer to itself as 'me' you would then say it is self-aware.

Questions carry implicit meaning and can't always be answered 
unconditionally. Not in philosophy and particularly not in the upper 
strata where we wander (in circles). 
 
> Cats are social beings and their behaviour suggests to me that they
> are self-aware; for example my sleeping cat reacts almost instantly to
> me touching a single one of his hairs. 

Not social in the MOQ sense, it's purring and ingratiating tricks are 
biological signals that bring benevolent reactions from its owner. IMO 
emotion is the social hallmark and cats are "out of sight out of mind", 
dogs on the other hand ... but still not the social LEVEL. That touching 
a cat's hairs rouses it are keen senses. 

> The names for the MoQ levels must relate to their everyday meaning
> otherwise we'll all be chasing each other's tails in these emails
> forever. The way I see it all life is to some degree self-aware in that
> even microbes respond to their environment.  

An even more sensitive issue. Inorganic and Biological are fairly 
straightforward, but the social level has no SOM match really, and 
used in the said everyday meaning brings trouble. Pirsig does not 
define any level, regarding the 4th. he just says  that all who have read 
LILA know what intellectual means, but already here trouble starts. 
The Bible that he says is lacking intellectual value is also a book, so is 
the Koran and all holy texts. 

> You confirm my interpretation of your point of view with 'At the
> bio.(cat) level this does not include a self or language, particularly
> not the internal kind we call "thinking"'. You reinforce this later
> with 'language came the silent form called "thinking"'. Agreed that
> real language is unique to humans but language is only a means of
> communication between humans and thought must take place before being
> expressed in language otherwise I wouldn't be able to translate your
> occasionally quirky use of English. 

A little misunderstanding here. SOM calls the inner language "thinking" 
but an organisms control of itself requires an absolutely daunting 
amount of data processing, but all this biological "thinking". Biology 
was first "digested" by the social level and its data processing  followed 
social value when it was digested by intellect. Then the important 
point: All levels are blind to the level context, intellect seen from inside 
itself is SOM where "intellect" is the subject (mind) while the rest is the 
objective world. All this is changed seen from MOQ's meta-level 
(which has digested intellect-cum-SOM (made it its own fourth static 
level whose value is the S/O distinction)     

> To me the SA's cougar that hesitates before leaping the ravine clearly
> indicates it has a conception of itself and it's future. This is the
> main reason I have such difficulty in equating SOM with the
> intellectual level.

It has no conception of self in the intellectual S/O sense of "I'm a 
cougar who am aware of myself being a cougar ...etc." but it clearly 
has a sense of self as an organism different from other organisms and 
its environment, in addition to being able to assess the situation and 
chose among strategies, in addition to umpteen million INTELLIGENT 
choices.   

Time for a break.

Bo