[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 1

[markhsmit]

On Oct 29, 2009, at 3:11:22 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
From:   skutvik at online.no
Subject:    Re: [MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 1
Date:   October 29, 2009 3:11:22 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Marksmit
that 
28 Oct.you wrote::

> Just for the purposes of broadening the discussion, I would like
> to bring in the various levels from a purely descriptive, physical
> view, with some dynamic interplay thrown in.

This can't go on with every newbie starting on "square zero" launching 
his/her opinions of the various Q-levels and then responses from the 
various "oldies" with just as many opinions mangling the MOQ totally.
Gee, I didn't know that MOQ was a done deal, a finished philosophy.
What total mayhem I have created, I can see why you see a
need to put a stop to it immediately.  I'm on board!!


Pirsig says that the static levels' layout isn't very original, and that's 
right regarding the terms themselves, but language is still SOM-loaded 
and until it becomes Quality-loaded a "transformation" must be 
performed. 

# 1. is no longer "substance" but "inorganic patterns of quality". 
Marksmit will notice how this resolves SOM's difference between 
particles and the forces, the strong nuclear force is a much "inorganic 
quality" as the particles. 
Oh I see, you change my word, substance, into four words, IPOG.  Yes, absolutely
now I see, but you have left out some salient points that may change your mind.  It should
be called "non-carbonaceous holographs of a universal ineffable creator and guider".
Don't you see how the introduction of holograms actually creates a three dimensional
image from that which is intangible?  How the the use of ineffable so humbly
creates just the right persuasion?  Also, my description of Quality creates a more
critical enabling of further discourse of a non-representational concept of
etherial nature.  Your IPOG is old school, didn't you get the memo?


#2 - the biological - seems to match SOM's "life" yet it really is 
"biological quality patterns". This distinction is important because it has 
implications for the evolution theory that (Pirsig claims) the MOQ 
reconciles with creationism. 
When you say biological, are you including the organometallic substances?  Because
these indeed represent a hybrid between the division of 1 and 2.  If not, are you
saying that the perhaps the organometallics could indeed represent a "bridge" between
the two levels thus allowing passage between the two?  It's unclear if a virus
is alive, how about a prion?  Or are these just satellites hovering in a nebulous,
yet to be defined region of MOQ perhaps dividing it into three parts? DQ/SQ/IQ


# 2. - the social - likewise. These Q-patterns aren't mere arbitrary 
assemblies of human beings, but the VALUE of cooperation 

If we also include conflict beside cooperation, is this an inverse value which
is able to cancel out the social and thus produce a variant of Quality such 
as an inverse Quality (or the negative third level)?


#4 - the intellectual - has caused most trouble. Years and years of 
bickering You may have noticed my SOL (intellect=SOM) against as 
many strange notions, your own one such. Why the SOL isn't 
accepted is because SOM still rules, its (mind-interpretation of) 
"intellect" is superimposed on MOQ's "intellect" and mangles the whole 
MOQ. . 
I agree, the intellectual has caused the most trouble, but not in the way you say.
Did you know that SOL and SOM spelled backwards is LOS and MOS.  If
time is bidirectional, we could well be on our way.  I think it is more important
to have acronyms with even numbers, the odd ones are only symmetrical
in one direction.  Let's move beyond this infantile description of Quality
and really get to business, shall we?  No more mangling please!  Lead the way.


Willblake2




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/