[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

>> Social value is the force that keeps things together when there's no
>> other explanation, such as biological or inorganic.
> 
> Then, by the same token, intellect is the force that keeps people 
> "thinking" when there's no other explanations such as inorganic, 
> biological or social.   

Not quite. You seem to think that a thought about a smell is biological value, 
but it's not. It's still a thought and therefore intellectual value.

>> What is so hard to understand about that?
> 
> Regarding social it makes everything below (included) the 3rd. level 
> "social" and that is not the Quality idea.

No, I just said that it doesn't. The atom level builds atoms without social 
value. The chemical level builds molecules without social value. The biological 
level builds the building blocks of cells without social value.

Don't put words in my mouth that I never said.

> Pirsig correctly says that it 
> makes social useless for classification, and adds that an intellect 
> before the Greeks makes THAT classification useless, but you don't 
> heed these "warnings". 

And I say Pirsig didn't think this through. And I present lots of arguments to 
invalidate those warnings.

So what you need to do, is to read those arguments and tell me why you think 
*they* are invalid. That would be a proper way to continue this discussion.

> Regarding intellect the notion of the MOQ as an intellectual pattern 
> makes everything "intellectual".

No. And I have no idea why you keep persisting this. The MoQ is not reality, 
it's merely a *model* of reality. I think it's connected to your refusal to 
differentiate between gravity and the law of gravity, but I can't really put my 
finger on it. At least to not so you understand what I mean.

> DQ itself is "intellectual", the static 
> levels are "intellectual". Craig protested and called this confusing the 
> menu and food, but after my Newton example he clammed shut.     

Craig's right, you're wrong.

> The SOL interpretation is now vouched for by Pirsig (as far as he could 
> possibly go)

I must have missed that, what did he say about it?

> but people don't admit anything, it's a fate worse than 
> death. The biological component of your "social" is the 3rd. level in its 
> parent's service, and I would advice you to accept that, as well as 
> dropping the the inorganic part.       

I'm afraid I didn't understand what you mean by that last part. But I will 
probably not accept it. And why would I drop the inorganic part? Do you mean we 
should remove the inorganic level?

	Magnus