[MD] What is the MOQ?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

> But now I don my stern face and continue our amputated debate 
> about the Newton argument in ZAMM that conveys a most crucial 
> point regarding the Quality Idea - must have because it is used 
> three times in various guises. The last entry was yours of April 
> 29:   

I agree it's pretty crucial, yes.

> Magnus:
>> Gravity is inorganic value that has been around since the big bang. I
>> doubt you have ever disputed that, you have simply ignored it and you
>> probably will this time as well.
> 
> What SOM (science or intellect) calls "gravity" is an observed 
> phenomenon in what it calls "nature" and the "Law" is an 
> explanation of  it. The 4th. level dominates our outlook to the 
> degree that you can't fathom an age before its scientific 
> explanation. No wonder by, as SOM it was reality itself, but now 
> our outlook is supposed to have moved to the MOQ.

Are you saying that the MoQ would move our point of view from "reality itself" 
to sitting in front of a TV observing reality through a lens?

I would disagree.

> An aside. You must know that Einstein's General Relativity 
> explains the phenomenon in a way that eliminates gravity in the 
> Newtonian remote force way.

Not really. He transformed the "straight" euclidean 3D space into a space with 
wells of gravity. But those wells of gravity still affects objects inside the 
well differently depending on how far the object is from the center, and how 
deep the well is, *and* how fast the object is traveling. A planet in a circular 
orbit around a star is, in relativity, said to travel in its own straight line, 
but that line is only straight because the planet is traveling at the correct 
speed, if it traveled fast enough, it would escape, because the gravity "force" 
is not enough to keep it in orbit.

It may sound very fancy to say that Einstein's gravity only changes the room, 
but it still depends on the force "downward" in the gravity wells, i.e. how 
steep the well is where an object is.

> And "artificial" gravity? A person 
> inside a rotating cylinder can't tell centrifugal force and gravity 
> apart.  

Wrong. First, you can drop something from your hand, if it falls straight down 
in the same direction as you're standing, it's gravity. But if it's deflected on 
its way down, it's centrifugal force. Also, a gyro would spot centrifugal force 
quite easily, so if you "just" do a pirouette, I bet you would feel the effects 
of spinning in more than one direction.

> However, in LILA Pirsig spends much time showing that SOM's 
> "nature" does not correspond to MOQ's 1st. level in a 
> metaphysical sense, and THAT is what the Newton argument is 
> about: Nature as an objective entity whose workings can be 
> unraveled is created by the intellectual level, there is no gravity 
> only "observed phenomena".     

But doesn't that mean that the rest of reality, apart from level 4 (or is this 
your MoQ level?) are only observed through a TV? It says: "Hey, we can't know 
anything about that world outside, we can only know what goes on inside our 
heads.". And isn't that very much like "I think, therefore I am"?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'll never subscribe to a point of 
view that denies the reality of the physical universe.


>> Now, the similarities between the law of gravity, the S/O division and
>> zero are that they are all intellectual patterns.
> 
> I would have said that the said law, as part of Newton's Physics, 
> and Zero as part of mathematics are intellectual patterns. That 
> the S/O is intellect goes without saying, it's the 4th. level itself. 
> If you protest you must show me some non-S/O intellectual 
> patterns.

What's most disturbing here is your belief that you can prove that the S/O 
division is intellect because it's the 4th level.

First, it's not *the* 4th level.
Second, you can't say that something *is* a level.
Regarding a protest, it would probably just confuse things. We have so different 
opinions about what a level is so it's pointless. I don't even agree with the 
premises of your "proof".


>> We can talk about them using language and we can represent them in
>> formulas etc. As intellectual patterns, they have only existed since
>> they were discovered (i.e. first represented) as intellectual patterns. 
> 
> Is language your definition of intellect?

No, language is the prerequisite for intellect (provided by the social level).
An intellectual pattern is something representing something else, via language.

> The point is that the 
> dualism of a phenomenon and the theory about it only exist at the 
> intellectual level.

Exactly! We have some common ground, long time no see.

That's the very dynamic contribution of the intellectual level. It was not 
possible before, and it's only possible to do that via language. Remove language 
and you have no idea what that theory means.

> My guess is that you won't find the term 
> "gravity" before Newton. Things fell to the ground, but it was their 
> own will. I you attribute this to ancient people's ignorance ... again 
> I point to Einstein who explained it differently from Newton's.      

No, I won't find the term "gravity" before Newton, and I won't find the term 
"relativity" before Einstein.

You say "things fell to the ground, but it was their own will".

With this, you only show that the intellectual explanation, i.e. the 
intellectual pattern describing how things fall, was different before Newton. It 
doesn't mean that things started falling differently.


>> However, the difference between the law of gravity and the S/O division is
>> *what* those intellectual patterns represent. The intellectual pattern
>> "the law of gravity" represents an inorganic value that *has* been around
>> since the big bang. 
> 
> Among intellect's many S/O patterns is that of "theories about-
> /and nature itself", as you will remember "substance" is a 
> platypus and if so "nature" is a platypus. No, intellect does not 
> represent anything else than its own value pattern.  

Ouch, and I thought we just agreed on this. What happened to the "dualism of a 
phenomenon and the theory about it"?

>> But the intellectual pattern "the S/O division" doesn't represent
>> anything *real*, not according to the MoQ anyway. 
> 
> Strange, if all intellect's patterns are supposed to "represent" 
> something why isn't S/O a representation. Naturally because it IS 
> intellect itself. 

The S/O division represents an idea that the MoQ has refuted. So, in a sense, it 
does represent something real, it's just that the idea it represents was incorrect.

>> It becomes infinitely more paralyzed if it denies the existence of gravity
>> before the "law of gravity" was formulated.
> 
> Paralysis is not caused by this, but by the impossible 4th. level. 
> Now, regarding the Newtonian example, as said it is used three 
> times so it must have been important to Phaedrus. How do you 
> interpret it?

When he spoke of the law of gravity as a ghost (mass hypnosis), he hadn't yet 
discovered the difference between the 1st level gravity and the 4th level 
representation. However, in Lila he writes:

"One could almost define life as the organized disobedience of the law of 
gravity. One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys this law 
is a measure of its degree of evolution. Thus, while the simple protozoa just 
barely get around on their cilia, earthworms manage to control their distance 
and direction, birds fly into the sky, and man goes all the way to the moon."

Does that sound as if he's denying the existence of gravity before Newton?

>> The fundamental split is *always* between DQ/SQ, no matter what level is
>> involved. The law of gravity is just as subjective or objective as gravity
>> itself. Both are static patterns of value and both are involved in quality
>> events, and thereby influenced by DQ.
> 
> The levels are Quality levels - that's kindergarten stuff - but it's 
> their static quality that counts, the 4th. level no exception. 
> Physics seeks the most truthful explanation of natural 
> phenomena, but "nature" isn't the MOQ's 1st. level, no more than 
> "mind" is its 4th. level.    

I never claimed they were. Not sure what you tried to say by that.

	Magnus