[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[Joseph Maurer]

On Wednesday 24 September 2008 11:45 PM Bo writes to Joe:

<snip>

> Language exists. The assertion that evolution exists indicates
> undefined levels in existence. S undefined individual, O defined
> Object. Another division which describes behavior is Conscious,
> undefined behavior, and Mechanical, defined behavior.  I am
> mostly unconscious in what I believe, and your treatise deserves
> careful consideration.
 
Even more cryptic.

Bo

 
Hi Bo and all,

Analogies for a DQ/SQ metaphysics can focus on the undefined/defined aspects
of DQ/SQ. The analogy I am thinking of in the above statement is a
Conscious/Mechanical analogy as suggested by Pirsig¹s statement that
³culture hands us a set of glasses.²  What I learned at my mother¹s knee
turns into an unconscious-mechanical model which I use throughout my life as
the motivation for my behavior without learning anything new.  I go to
school to learn a few things more, but mostly my behavior is not Conscious
but Mechanical.  I mechanically accept a few ways of behaving that I am
taught are right, e.g. SOM, Body/soul, matter/mind.

IMO Magnus in his paper wanted to suggest an analogy for DQ in the inorganic
level.  He called it ³The Big Bang² which resonates as an analogy throughout
all the levels of evolution.  Some identify the Big Bang as God and lose
sight of the analogy.

In your own thought you suggest a meta-level MOQ which supports the
explanation of SOL. IMO this suggests that the S of SOL has evolved further.
The problem is hard to envision, and the solution even harder to enunciate
through analogies or metaphors.  I am confident that the enlightened heroes
throughout the ages reached a higher level of Consciousness.  Their words
and behavior are once removed analogies to the Big Bang analogy, resulting
in models for the rest of us.

Joe



On 9/24/08 11:45 PM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

> Hi Joe 
> 
> 23 Sep. you wrote:
>   
>> Hi Magnus, Bo and All,
>> Magnus, the gentleness of your generous open-heart approach is very
>> appealing and special!
> 
> Yes, Magnus can be ... mellow ...at times ;-)
> 
>> IMO DQ cannot be an agent of change. DQ is an
>> order in existence. That is why no rational explanation can be found
>> to capture the workings of DQ.
> 
> The dynamic/static "interaction" in the MOQ resembles the
> mind/matter one in SOM, intricately connected yet worlds apart (only
> not creating.any paradoxes that I know) consequently you are both
> right and wrong regarding DQ as agent of change.
> 
> But over to the darwinist/creationist dispute that Pirsig claims the MOQ
> resolves by making it an intellectual versus social level struggle and
> moreover that the issue they bicker about  is the biological level out of
> the inorganic. 
> 
>> Evolution describes levels in existence.   It is useless to ask how!
> 
> I agree. The biological level out of  the inorganic is no more or less
> "irrational" (i.e. inexplicable by intellect) than the 3rd. out of the 2 nd.
> or 
> the 4th. out of the 3rd. MOQ simply says that all levels grow in
> complexity, and that a complex (dynamic) pattern provides the
> stepping stone for the next Q development.
> 
>> Only the undefined individual has that experience which can only be
>> communicated by analogy or metaphor.  Yet that Subjective part of the
>> individual is experienced.
> 
> You are "deep" at times and I'm not always sure if your statements are
> MOQ or SOM. 
> 
>> SOM is the false assertion that mind is separate from matter and
>> definable.  Aristotle asserts that the mind abstracts the ³essence²
>> from an image and gives it  ³intentional² existence in a mind, a word.
>> MOQ asserts that mind does not exist apart from matter, only the
>> individual Subject exists.
> 
> You know "your" Aristotle and this sounds most plausible, wish Ham
> understood that his Essentialism is straight from Aristotle's
> 
>> Language exists.  The assertion that evolution exists indicates
>> undefined levels in existence. S undefined individual, O defined
>> Object.  Another division which describes behavior is Conscious,
>> undefined behavior, and Mechanical, defined behavior.  I am mostly
>> unconscious in what I believe, and your treatise deserves careful
>> consideration. 
> 
> Even more cryptic.
> 
> Bo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/