[MD] Some historical perspective

[MarshaV]

Greetings Mark,

>From a MoQ point-of-view, I do not think patterns represent a subject/self or an object.  Patterns are experience;   patterns are events/process; patterns are ever-changing, interrelated, interconnected, relative and conceptually constructed.  I like to think of a pattern in terms of opposite-from-non-pattern(labeled).  That gives leaves it somewhat definition broad, unbounded, and its meaning dependent on individual history and immediate event, which would include DQ.  

There is no self; it is an illusion; a conceptually constructed mistake. What is mistaken as a self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality. And the only reality is now, now, now, now, now, etc...    I see no reason to for the label 'naked ape', nor do I give much serious attention to the patterns science objectifies, reifies or fanaticizes. And I find nothing illuminating in the term 'hard core'; if you would like to explain, please do.  

You state that reification is an action, well of course it is, Quality is an process.  That doesn't prevent subjects and objects from mistakenly be considered real, inherently existing, independent things-in-themselves. Even theoretical physicist consider their standard model to contain "real" particles.  And as for 'Democracy' it is too often thought of as some kind of objective, independent state that can be achieved. "Let give those Iraqis democracy."  Such foolishness...   

Intellectualizing is a process constructed from a SOM point-of-view.  Certainly your explanations haven't presented any kind of evidence to the contrary.  As far as I can remember The Naked Ape is the name of a book I read in the 70s. You wrote: "The nervous system, which is an intellectual description of biology, is the source of emotions. It’s evolutionary function is has been concerned with survival. These days, it has things like E = mc2 to respond to as well.", which a complex of ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value. 

For the moment, we may have to agree that we have different realities and therefore different experiences of the MoQ.  Maybe over time we will better understand each other.


Marsha  







-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of mark_maxwell at talktalk.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:50 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective


Hi Marsha,



Mark, You are quite correct, the moq does not assume there is a 'self' which manipulates static patterns of intellectual quality.



Squonk (aka mark): It’s good to have this confirmed.

　

For me the MoQ defines Quality as experience, unpatterned experience(DQ) and patterned experience(spovs).

Squonk: As stated in Lila.

　

But I was explaining the mistaken nature of Intellectual patterns as I understand them. But first, I might mention that in general I understand all spov to be patterned experience that are ever-changing, interrelated, interconnected, relative and conceptually constructed.



Squonk: But you are careful to avoid idealism by stating that it is intellect which constructs/is compo
 sed of/manipulates in response to DQ, symbolic representations of lower patterns of value, even though lower patterns of value are intellectual constructs.

　

Within the last few months I have come to the conclusion that, like Bo has been arguing, Intellectual patterns are all of the subject/object type.

That is, when Intellectual patterns is the process where a reified concept or symbol be acted upon by a independent self. This is not from the MoQ point-of-view, but from a SOM point-of-view.



Squonk: I think I understand.

1. Intellectual patterns either represent a subject, or represent an object.

Intellectual patterns are not, ‘the thing’ whether ‘the thing’ be a subject of an object - they
  represent them as static patterns.

But this is not so in the moq: Intellectual patterns are ‘one step removed’ from representations. Intellectual patterns refer to themselves and do not represent either subjects or objects.

Those patterns which DO represent subjects or objects are social patterns of value.

　

2. Re. Independent self.

It is my belief that what you are referring to here is what I have been calling, ‘The naked ape’.

This is symbolically represented as a social pattern in the mind.

This is also symbolically represented in scientific medical terms as intellectual patterns in the mind.

There is a ‘hard core’ within the scientific medical terms that does not refer 
 to either a subject or an object. Think about it?

　

3. Re. Reification in action.

The naked ape is the biological aspect which provides the emotional/neuro-mechanical drive which ‘acts upon symbols as if they are concrete’ - which they are, if by concrete we understand them to be patterns of value.

When it acts upon intellectual patterns it is not acting in response to either a subject or an object; ‘Democracy’ is not a subject or an object, and yet people die defending it.

　

　

Now all that I have just stated is intellectualizing, and full of illusions of subjects and objects.

Squonk: ‘Full of subjects and objects’. But is it though Marsha?

If you 
 consider what you are saying above you may begin to discern that you are representing representations, and these are neither subjects nor objects. ‘Intellectualising’ is not restricted to subjects or objects even though you seem to have been erroneously persuaded that it is.

　

But then all your talk of naked apes, nervous systems and emotions are also statements about reified concepts.



Squonk: Like you, some of what my words ascribe are social, and some are intellectual. Those that represent are social, and those that represent representations are intellectual.

That fact that you are presenting them even if using a lower case i, makes it a subject/object type of philosophical statement.



Squonk: I apolog
 ise if I have not been following the forum convention regarding upper/lower case. Not intended.

I have attempted to draw what I think is the correct moq distinction between social patterns and intellectual patterns. Once this is understood one can add a dynamic aspect to them, and this is where the moq really kicks in IMHO.



And as for the rest of your statements, I have no idea what you are getting at with your 'delighting nervous system'.

Marsha



Squonk: The nervous system, which is an intellectual description of biology, is the source of emotions. It’s evolutionary function is has been concerned with survival. These days, it has things like E = mc2 to respond to as well.
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/