[MD] Stacks

[Magnus Berg]

Bo

On 2010-08-01 10:40, skutvik at online.no wrote:
>
>> Magnus toward Bo:
>>> You're speaking from the human perspective stack now. In the
>>> universal stack, social patterns are very much dependent on gravity.
>>> Cities resides on the ground, they're not flying around mid air. So
>>> social events that happen to social patterns must always take
>>> gravity into account because of this dependency.
>
>> Right! It would be terribly immoral to disregard gravity when working
>> in higher levels. For example, consider the extremely antisocial act
>> of defenestration.
>
> I leave the stack issue to you two. Magnus response was so "yxskaft"-
> ish" (he will know what it means) that no reply is possible. And your
> comment is just an echo of his non-understanding - even adding some
> more irrelevance if possible.

Yxskaft means axe shaft and are used to label a reply as irrelevant.
So, I'd better look at what I replied in my last post...

Ok, I guess it was my complaining about Bo's inconsistent writing that 
put him off. In one sentence, it seems he thinks gravity is one thing 
and in the next, it's something else. But then again he insists the two 
are identical.

One big problem is that if you only discuss the world from within a 
human understanding of it, there actually nothing forcing you to get 
everything right. It doesn't matter if you disregard some rule here and 
there and miss something very crucial once or twice. As long as nobody 
spots the error, you can get away with it, because reality doesn't care 
if you get it wrong, it works on just like it always has worked before.

But if you really, as I do, try to understand how reality works, then 
you *have* to get everything right, otherwise it's very easy to point at 
some inconsistency and thereby wreck the theory.

So, Bo, you can construct any system you want because it doesn't have 
anything to do with reality anyway. You even say so yourself:

Bo:
 > But again MOQ is not interested in
 > science, its business is the value relationship and moral codes there
 > are between the levels.

So, I guess you don't care much for:

Morality = Reality = Quality

either?


But when you do your own theory, please remember that it has nothing 
whatsoever to say to us who are trying to make a coherent theory about 
reality.

Don't we all aim at a MoQ with a better ability to explain what we see 
around us? And shouldn't such a theory be able to tell the difference 
between something that change and something that doesn't change but only 
our own understanding of it? SOM can. So in that respect, I'd pick SOM 
any day before Bo's crippled MoQ.

> "Immoral to disregard gravity" LOL!

Yes, it was supposed to be funny, but perhaps you didn't realize that it 
was your theory that was the target?


> I just
> referred to the campfire talk in ZAMM that carries the deep insight that
> a revolutionary physics theory changes the scientific outlook and as
> science - as part of intellect - is the top notch it has ramifications for all
> of society (not Q-society though) and - consequently - a metaphysical
> revolution revolutionizes everything. Get it?

It revolutionizes our human perspective, yes.

BUT REALITY TICKS ON AND COULDN'T CARE LESS!


>> The levels are integral. This is part of the lesson of the stack.
>> Morality is optimized by considering each of the levels. To ignore any
>> one level is to disintegrate morality.
>
> The levels as integral I agree with, but they are also mutually exclusive
> (I'm not sure how Pirsig expressed it) the upper shying the lower as
> evil and the lower shying  the upper as destroyer of "order". The stack
> idea has always been part of the MOQ, that is, only from MOQ's meta-
> level do we see the immense complexity beneath the whole static
> range.

Now you're making things up again Bo. If lower levels were shying upper, 
that would mean they are aware of the higher level in the first place. 
But they aren't. The lower levels look right, left, north and south, but 
the higher level is nowhere to be found. Because it's above and the 
lower level doesn't know what "up" is.

	Magnus