[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[MarshaV]

Greetings Bo,



At 03:15 AM 2/15/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha
>
>Bo before:
> > > "Intellect is the value of the "real/representative" distinction.
>
>Marsha:
> > I do not understand this sentence.  I see all
> > patterns having the same nature, but pointing to
> > referents of varying evolutionary standing, and
> > because of that, falling into the different
>
>There are different levels for the reason that patterns are NOT of 
>the same nature.
>Inorganic patterns are incompatible with biological patterns and so 
>on upwards.

In my MOQ world, the nature of patterns is as mental 
constructs.  Patterns (mental constructions) that represent 
conventional knowledge of the inorganic, biological, social and 
intellectual kind.



>
> > levels.  The pattern E = mc2 and its mathematical
> > meaning would fall into the Intellectual level.  Yes?  No?
>
>Yes, it is because it is supposed to be an objective"law" of nature, 
>not merely a figment of
>Einstein's mind (ref. Newton's Gravity) SOM again..

Yes, and the operative word is 'supposed'.  Not SOM again.  Not self 
and objects, but ever-changing,  interrelated and interconnected, 
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of 
value responding to Dynamic Quality.

Zebra is a static pattern of value, an ever-changing mental 
construction extracted from Dynamic Quality.  There is not an 
external object Zebra, but only the overlaid pattern whose label is 
zebra.  Zebras exists only by conventional recognition of the 
pattern.  The Zebra-spov would fall into the Biological Level.  Where 
you want to stick the word 'zebra' is where I get somewhat 
confused.  Because language is a social phenomenon, I would tend to 
put it in the Social Level.


>
>
> > Thoughts?  Bo?  Anybody?
>
>I'll bring up my: "Intellect is the value of the 
>"real/representative" distinction" sentence again
>and try a most "grotesque" application of it.

Real?  Conventionally real?



>SOList or not we all agree that the social level did not have the 
>subject/object distinction (of
>which "representative versus real" is a form) now we also agree that 
>formal religions are
>social patterns ...no?
>
>For me the most pure formal religion is Islam (Christendom is 
>heavily intellect-influenced)
>and a muslim fundamentalist will blow himself to 
>smithereens  because killing islam's
>enemies will grant him an eternal life in paradise.
>
>The point is that afterlife, paradise and such aren't spiritual to 
>social level dwellers, but very
>corporeal and sensual. This is what intellect has driven its S/O 
>wedge into and if not totally
>made religions into dubious subjective state of MIND (as the 
>scientific skeptical branch has
>it)  then at least made the afterlife ..etc. into a soul-ish, 
>spiritual experience (as the intellect-
>influenced Christendom has it).
>
>Do you now understand why I call the subject/object split (or 
>mind/matter)  intellect's VALUE
>and why I alternate between praising and accusing  it? It has 
>disarmed religious fanaticism
>yet when it comes to you (folks) your total immersion in intellect 
>makes you incapable of
>understanding the MOQ. ...if not this is a turning point? Must add 
>that this is just one single
>aspect of intellect's "control" of social value.

Religion is a social level pattern.  I see little value in any of the 
Abrahamic religions.  Abusing reason for God's (power's) sake hardly 
makes Christianity intellectual.  At least, imho.  You seem to be 
comparing the blue pixie with the green pixie.  It all sounds like 
silliness to me.


Marsha





.
_____________

The self is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality .
.
.