[MD] skutvic and corteen teach each other

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Peter.

Great post! 

27 Nov. you said:
 
> The Krimel's point in 'Top Down Fallacy' was that he had perceived in
> these threads that various people seem to hold the view that quality
> is some kind of divine force that pervades down through the levels;
> his point of view, and I agreed with him, was that it really works the
> other way - quality is first manifested in the inorganic substrate.
> Gav disagreed, offering that quality's effect was bi-directional.  My
> suggestion of the digested quality then reshaping the lower levels,
> although I didn't return this idea in that thread, was my attempt at
> explaining the bi-directional nature of quality within the levels. I
> hope those mentioned don't think I have done them too much of a
> disservice in my interpretation.

I agree with you and Krimel re. the fact that the inorganic level 
"comes first". On the other hand a metaphysics, as the biggest 
system there is, re-orients reality, but that's not directional, rather 
instantaneous. Anyway, after the SOM-MOQ transition the down-
up view applies solely. Bi-directional in the sense of the upper 
level "exploiting and mistreating" the lower is a fact, but the lower 
level as the upper's base is clear. 

This is a most intriguing issue and it would take me a whole day 
to render the previous debates on it. There once was a thread - 
"What comes first" I believe it was - that went on for months 
based on a Pirsig annotation in Lila's Child, where he tries to 
reconcile the SOM and MOQ positions as if there is an 
Archimedan point from where one may view the two. This is 
impossible IMO Annotation no. 97 (p 564)  how ideas create 
matter by a detour to the social level ...etc.       

> Bo, you had difficulties with my use of the word 'reshaping' in
> describing the effect of new value created by the higher, more
> volitional levels on the levels below. Perhaps it wasn't the best
> choice of words; take your finger example, I move my finger and in a
> small way I have reshaped the objective world. Interestingly enough,
> experiments have shown that if I even think of moving my finger but
> without carrying through into action then a small change in the finger
> takes place. This act of remembering our corporeal selves keeps
> fretful associations at bay and is a most conducive practice.

Regarding finger-moves, do you mean the Benjamin Libet 
experiment that showed that half a second BEFORE the decision 
to move a brain "excitation" was registered? However, an 
organism doesn't think (there is a story about a millepede who 
was asked how it knew how its legs moved, after that it couldn't 
move) signals originate in much lower stratas of the brain, some 
organisms even lacks discernible brain - nerves even - and move 
all the same. 

Regarding volition, my point is that the intellectual level is not 
MIND and the biological level is not MATTER so no mind/matter 
gap is jumped. The intellectual level is the mind/matter "gap" and 
the experiment is based on its  premises, but as it shows, the 
biological brain anticipates the alleged decision no matter how 
the test persons tried to outwit "themselves". It's difficult to snap 
out of SOM where intellect is mind or thinking and on to the MOQ 
where the intellectual level is the S/O distinction 

> You say that even the more sociable dog is not of the MoQ's Social
> level and I suspect you'll say the same thing about chimpanzees too.

Yes, but a comment. The social level may not have a sharp 
border to biology, the primates (apes) are bordercases, but the 
best way to understand the static levels is the negative way, how 
the upper is an escape from the restraints of the lower. In this 
view social value is a shore against biology's "dog eats dog" 
existence. If still unclear (a gangster group displays strict social 
discipline) I believe this also is dog-eats-dog in a MOQ sense.
  
> You also said earlier that the self-awareness term not belongs, but
> was created in the Intellectual level;  I'd agree with that and add
> that the MoQ was created not by, but from intellect too. 

Yes, a most important point. the MOQ is somehow from (out of) 
intellect because it is a departure from SOM.

> But this slant suggest to me that you consider the MoQ is not a general
> map but instead one of particular application with it's own partial,
> ground rules. 

Phew, you raise one core issue after the other, and here you put 
your finger on the said "Archimedean point" as if there is a reality 
that various metaphysics draw more or less correct maps of. But 
the notion of Quality=(this) Reality and the MOQ just another 
map is untenable. The MOQ constitutes a Dynamic Reality/Static 
Reality universe in contrast to the SOM that constituted a 
Subjective Reality/Objective Reality universe. The Quality part is 
to give it a direction.       

> Please confirm whether you consider that MoQ's social and intellectual
> levels are only applicable in the human realm? 

Yes, I do with the qualifications regarding this point (up) above.

> You agree the cougar has intellect and can plan but you say that it
> can never think to itself in it's own 'mentalese' the equivalent of 'I
> am a cougar and am aware of myself being a cougar...'. You may be
> right but how would we know if it could think in such a way? 

First, I hopefully said "intelligent". Regarding how we know that a 
cougar don't think the said way (and that this characterizes 
MOQ's intellectual level) I may have been a bit hasty. Social 
level mankind certainly knew own identity the said way, but 
what's for sure is that they did not question their mythological 
reality. No one can be a Jihadist if he is skeptical about Islam.            

> Agreed that humans are vastly more capable in many ways, especially
> what we call symbol manipulation, than the other animals but consider
> that this is just a case of degree. How about the chimp that clearly
> recognises itself in a mirror and then checks out it's teeth? Surely
> you have to concede that this behaviour shows self-awareness and even
> self-consiousness? 

Primates (even if not social in the MOQ sense) may understand 
the mirror reality (mirrors exist in nature) but because they lack 
language they simply can't perform the silent dialogue we call 
"thinking". But they THINK in the intelligence sense of treating 
experience in imaginary scenarios, they just don't know the S/O 
(imaginary/real) contrast.         

> In many different threads here I have seen your statement that
> 'intellect seen from inside itself is SOM where "intellect" is the
> subject (mind) while the rest is the objective world' and that the
> value of intellect is the S/O distinction; those statements have a
> ring to them and kind of make sense but I still don't see the utility.

It's encouraging - you seeing that point - I thought it was 
impossible to convey this idea. Not seeing the utility is another 
matter, but let that wait, this post is out of limits already.  

> Bo, we seem to be going over the same points, I hope you aren't
> getting too tired; I'm still waiting for the epiphany. Please don't
> give me history lessons, you may say I'm trapped in SOM but I need to
> be able to reason your assertions.

No SOM lesson, it was a pleasure to discuss these most salient 
points. If I have repeated myself, please disregard. 

See you

Bo