[MD] Loneliness

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian 

9 Sep. you spoke:

> Bo, I too would like some new insight on your point.
> Why is "the level's picture of itself" a falacy, as opposed to a
> possible view ? Same question as I just asked Marsha in fact, in your
> view, where is this picture / view ?

It is the pesky "MOQ an intellectual pattern" issue. If MOQ is an 
intellectual pattern we only get intellect's view (of the MOQ) .... as 
another product of mind, another idea ...bla, bla. 

Intellect is supposed to be a MOQ "pattern"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. 

It's related to the equally pesky "Quality/MOQ" issue, the MOQ just 
another web spun by mind (mind=intellect as defined by the 4th level). 
Pirsig has in fact seen the problem here and have said that Quality is 
MOQ's Dynamic Quality  (Hello Anthony can you affirm this?) but when 
he returns in his Oriental Mood it's "the same procedure".  

    The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be 
    separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest 
    of the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't change from day 
    to day, although the world it talks about does. To use an 
    Oriental metaphor, it is just another finger pointing toward the 
    moon. (Summary 2005)  

> (I'm at least as much intrigued as to why you are such a dog with a
> bone on this point of principle - ie what is the practical / pragmatic
> problem of holding this view.)

You will probably answer: "Of course, Quality is MOQ's DQ, it's just 
that the MOQ is a 'theory about' Quality" But this makes reality's 
deepest split  "Dynamic/Concept" and a mess of the MOQ, its levels 
are just concepts i.e. the said mind-patterns. 

The Q-split is Dynamic/Static and the first static level is the inorganic 
one.   

> (PS you currently ignored my point about your scientific falacy ... in
> the uncertainty thread.)

Er ... you sounded so dismissive, but we don't really  disagree, our 
small disagreement was whether QT was/is proved right by the Aspect 
Experiment or just Einstein's objections to it disproved. If still 
controversial wouldn't you expect new experiments suggested to put it 
to some final test? Yet, these experiments and conclusions are from 
science's (intellect's) point of view, MOQ's view however is IMO much 
like the Newton's Gravity issue.     

Bodvar





> 
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:03 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > Hi WaveDave (to distinguish you from Mr. Buchanan)
> >
> > 8 Sep.
> >
> >> Greetings MoQers (old and new)
> >
> > The oldest one greets you welcome back and am glad that the "David"
> > quota is kept constant ;-)
> >
> 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/
> 
>