[MD] Reductionism

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Platt 

On 5 July you wrote:

> If the English symbol "intellectual" means the ability to distinguish
> between other and self (objective from subjective) then the symbol
> applies to my cat UTOE and all other life forms. 

I must have expressed myself badly. The term "intellect" means an 
OBJECTIVE, rational attitude that rejects what's SUBJECTIVE as 
"mere" figments of mind. The MOQ says this is valuable if merely 
seen as a static level, but as SOM it spells a valueless universe.  

> Even if they may not be self-aware, they act as if they know the
> difference between self and other. 

Animals certainly  know the self/other distinction, it's the requirement 
of the biological immune system.

> So I don't think that the symbol "intellectual" defines the value of
> the MOQ 4th level. Rather, what defines the MOQ 4th level is the VALUE
> OF SYMBOL MANIPULATION over the social level's value of conventional
> human thoughts, ideas and concepts including the S/O, mind/matter
> split. From different perspectives we arrive at the same conclusion --
> the 4th level's value is NOT concepts, ideas or thoughts.     

But language IS symbol manipulation and mankind of old (social 
level) both had language and calculated things (another symbol 
manipulation) so symbols were manipulated galore long before the 
4th. level. And in the P.T. letter says that it's no use speaking about 
intellect before the Greeks (SOM)  OK, atl east you see that 
concepts, ideas or thoughts aren't intellectual patterns and that's the 
point.

> As argued above, I consider the reality/concept split a social value.
> It is the basis of conventional thinking and is necessary for
> survival. 

People of old (social level) did not treat language as "mind 
phenomenon" because they hadn't reached intellect's mind/matter 
stage. of which "concept/reality" is a subset. On the contrary they 
regarded language as a powerful means to reach the powers that 
governed existence. Rituals dominated this reality. WE see remnants 
of this era in Woodoo pricking dolls with needles that is supposed to 
bring pain to the bearer of the name. Or burning of symbols (flags, 
effigies) that the Muslims are so fond of. Those people lack the 
intellectual attitude. Dreams is another example, these weren't "just" 
figments of mind, but portents and omens.   

> What makes up the the intellectual level is symbol manipulation,
> represented primarily by mathematics, symbolic logic and computer
> "languages" that dominate today's scientific amoral methodology. By
> itself, the number 6 is no better or worse than the number 2. That's
> the problem of the intellectual level, not the S/O split which serves
> human survival needs well. 

Symbol manipulation in itself isn't what makes up the intellectual 
level. It's the objective attitude that regards symbols, concepts, 
VALUES, MORALS and QUALITY as mere mental phenomena and 
therefore irreal.

I had said: 
> > Finally, the MOQ postulates a DQ/SQ split and says that the dynamic
> > part is indefinable. What's wrong with that? Is it "defined" just by
> > saying so in words?

Platt:
> Not sure of your point. "Ineffable" means "indefinable" which means
> unable to be put into words (symbols) other than the symbol "DQ."

I meant exactly what you said above. The MOQ says that the DQ part 
is "unable to put in words", and isn't that enough? Why the need for a 
Quality/MOQ split on top of that? Allegedly meaning that the MOQ is 
conceptual therefore static, but this is counterproductive. Language is 
the medium by which the Quality Reality is expressed. 


Bodvar