[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[MarshaV]

At 05:02 AM 2/18/2009, you wrote:
>At 09:19 PM 2/17/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>>Marsha:  orange
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>David:
>>
>>I once wrote a whole chapter (The Epicurean Concept of Mind, Meaning and
>>Knowledge) arguing that feelings (using David Hume's definition that all
>>perceptions are feelings) are the basic biological level of symbol: the only
>>level used by babies and other nonverbal animals to understand meaning. And
>>that words are the same meaning translated to a social level. I argued that
>>although the verbal level overwhelms the feeling level in the consciousness
>>(especially in white males) the ability to read and write words is the
>>ability to make this translation back and forth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Marsha:
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>David:
>>I would now argue you are correct, the word Zebra is a social level symbol
>>but the interesting part for me is that either feelings or words can be used
>>on the intellectual level. As anyone who has had a thought that they
>>couldn't verbalize can tell you.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bo:
>>
>> >"Not in the sense that the other levels are "real"
>>
>> >and intellect "represents" them, this is the fallacy that Pirsig
>>
>> >commits at the beginning of the "symbol manipulation" definition:"
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as
>> >     biological and inorganic patterns are designated with a sign
>> >     that stands for them and these signs are manipulated
>> >     independently of the patterns they stand for. "Intellect" can
>> >     then be defined very loosely as the level of independently
>> >     manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can
>> >     be described as the rules of this sign manipulation.
>>
>>
>>
>> >David:
>>
>> >I spotted the same fallacy in his (Pirsig's) computer metaphor (Lila) of
>>course
>> >the meaning of the novel being written on the computer exists in all
>> >levels of the computer (electrical charge, binary, number and letter symbol
>>levels).
>> >One only needs to learn how to read the specific symbol level to be
>> >able to read the words which are actually just symbols for the
>> >biological level feelings -david swift.
>>
>>
>>
>>Marsha:
>>I don't see a fallacy, unless of course you mean it's all fallacy.
>>Biological symbols or not, aren't they still analogies, mental
>>constructions, spovs, all the way down and all the way up?  If I'm missing
>>something please try to explain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hello Marsha,
>>
>>For the record the computer metaphor I speak of is found at pages 150 - 152
>>of Lila. When will someone publish indexed versions of ZAMM and Lila? The
>>underlined words in the above passage quoted by Bo are what I think he and I
>>see as false. Pirsig is trying to make the point that the four levels of
>>spovs are independent of each other. I'm not sure I'm right but it seems
>>that he believes in some kind of alternate mental universe that exists in
>>parallel with our universe. He's in good company: Plato, Augustus and
>>Descartes to name a few, but just because they can't see the physical
>>connection between the top three levels doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
>>Perhaps this is wrong but I don't think anyone has a problem seeing the
>>direct connection between the inorganic and biological level spovs. But for
>>some reason they miss the connection between the biological, social and
>>intellectual levels.
>>
>>
>>
>>One example given by Pirsig to illustrate the independence of these levels
>>is suicide, which is supposed to represent a conflict between the biological
>>and intellectual levels. However in a non-mental (strictly physical)
>>universe, intellect is a biological function like breathing or digestion. So
>>suicide is a bunch of brain cells trying to impose their will to cut a bunch
>>of wrist cells and the conflict is biology vs biology not intellect vs
>>biology.
>>
>>
>>
>>I think he believes in a mental universe because at the bottom of page 151
>>he says:
>>
>>
>>
>>       "Certainly the novel cannot exist in the computer without a parallel
>>pattern of voltages to support it. But that does not mean that the novel is
>>an expression or property of those voltages. It doesn't have to exit in any
>>electronic circuits at all. It can also reside in magnetic domains on a disk
>>of a drum or a tape, but again it is not composed of magnetic domains nor is
>>it possessed by them. It can reside in a notebook but it is not composed of
>>or possessed by the ink and paper. It can reside in the brain of a
>>programmer, but even here it is neither composed of this brain nor possessed
>>by it."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The root of the fallacy is his failure to realize that the novel only exists
>>physically in the brains of the writer and readers. The pattern of voltages,
>>magnetic domains and ink and paper representations of the novel are only
>>symbols and have no meaning until a living brain decodes them. It may seem a
>>small point and is certainly open to question and argument but I believe
>>getting this right has implications for the MoQ. -david swift
>>
>
>Greetings David,
>
>Thank you for the opportunity to read this portion of Lila 
>again.   They are important pages.
>
>First lets agree we're ignoring the nature of the patterns and we're 
>going to talk about the referents: brains, novels, individual, 
>voltages, ink, paper, the MOQ levels, and the relationship between 
>them.  Right?  -  I understand the static world of patterns and 
>levels to represent the Buddhist concept of conventional reality, 
>the human sandbox.
>
>The individual is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and 
>interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
>static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.  The 
>different 'individual' collections of patterns are as alike as snowflakes.
>
>On the few pages sited, there are a number of different problems 
>discussed.  Are you specifically addressing the fact that a pattern, 
>its function, is discreet to its level, but required all underlying 
>levels for its evolution?   A brain to me is a biological 
>pattern.  I do not equate brain and mind.  Do you see it 
>differently?  Where, specifically is your discomfort?  I think 
>science is in the room.
>
>
>Marsha
>
>ps  -  I had my computer training at a technical college, I 
>understand on&off switches and machine language.  Cobol was my 
>language of poetry, but I debugged many a program reading computer 
>dumps and seeking out what was in a particular register and location.


Greetings David,

Hmmm.  If I'm correct, and science is in the room, let me add a word or two.

The MoQ, for me, is a world-view to which science is 
subordinate.  Science is a subject/object subset of the MoQ 
world-view and cannot be used to evaluate or explain it.


Marsha




























>.
>_____________
>
>Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
>.
>.
>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/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.