[MD] MOQ Recursion

Wed Aug 11 14:08:14 PDT 2010

Quote , Magnus.

For the umpteenth time, what makes you say the non human perspective is
objective? Have you missed every quantum mechanics discussion we have ever
had here? Or don't you believe in the uncertainty principle? Or quantum
mechanics at all? There's no scientist left that, in this light, believes in
an objective reality anymore, and it doesn't matter one bit if the observer
is human or not. Have you totally missed that? Quantum mechanics agrees with
the MoQ. We can leave the human perspective stack and use MoQs rules also in
the physical (NOT OBJECTIVE) reality.

Adrie

Only 1 remark on this item , Magnus, if you allow me, Quantum mechanics is
the old name for Quantum physiks,

it was okay in the old days, but later on, it became considered as too
narrow funded, the word was too archaic.
quantum physiks provides a better coverage of the complexity of this matter.

Quantum physiks agrees with the Moq

maybe you should re-think it as

Quantum physiks is not  in conflict with the Moq, they are congruent.
but mind you , this is only a proposal , of course, for the rest i agree on
the complete paragrafe,all the way.

The stacks, well, good approach, valuable, you are trespassing on an other
mans intellectual property, without damaging it, nice.
As i'm thinking of it , ...probably there are some important nuggets to be
found with this approach.

just crossed my mind , think it was Dave(dmb) , some days ago,talking about
the way of "reason" crossreffering ZAM(in context)
mmm, you seem to be on the path of reason, Magnus, like Andre, Dave,
'Pirsig', Horse, Ian, etc..., nice, a thinker in the room for a change.

I think one of this days , Magnus , i will tell you about the mechanism of
the uncertainty-problem.., and i like you to tell me more about your stacks

greetzz, Adrie.

2010/8/11 Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se>

>
> Hi Bo
>
> >Magnus:
> >> Not usually, but for the intellectual level it is, because it contains
> >> only references (to other patterns).
> >
> >Here is our million miles difference. The MOQ's 4th. level has nothing
> >to do with your "reference-to-other patterns" definition which is directly
> >adopted from SOM's "intellect" term which means "the mental realm
> >you are at when thinking or speaking about anything". You have to
> >snap out of this illusion to enter  the MOQ where the said level has
> >everything to do with degrading/controlling social value. It's this
> >MORAL struggle that the MOQ is the about  and characterize all static
> >levels.
>
> I've said this multiple times but you never seem to understand that it is
> possible to agree with the latter part of that but at the same time reject
> your SOM accusations.
>
> Degrading/controlling social value? of course, otherwise it wouldn't be
> intellectual. No argument there. Neither with the moral struggle.
>
> What you always fail to understand is how my intellectual level differs
> from SOMs mind. As I said below, a note on a paper is nothing SOM would call
> mind right? But since you fail to leave your human perspective stack, you
> fail to see why I, and others, can call a note on a paper an intellectual
> pattern.
>
> >Don't you think the social reality (when it was "leading edge") people
> >could make abstract signs on papyrus, clay tablets, walls and in
> >general were as smart as ourselves? As I say below:..
>
> Of course they could, but that doesn't bother me since I'm in the universal
> stack and think that they were quite able to respond to intellectual
> patterns. As you said, they were as smart as we are.
>
> Your intellectual patterns are built on, and controls, the human society in
> which the humans live. I acknowledge that, and I also acknowledge the
> transition once made from socially controlled human societies to
> intellectually controlled human societies.
>
> But what you always fail to see is that this transition has also happened
> in the society we call animal. I know you don't recognize that but that's
> simply your loss. You'll never be able to realize the immense power of the
> MoQ if you keep klinging to your human centric view. Just sad when thinking
> about the time you spent on it.
>
>
> >If you don't see the MOQ as bigger than its levels you need to check
> >your logical faculty.
>
> Sure it is, but it's not important in this case since we're talking about
> *descriptions*.
>
> >The MOQ as an intellectual pattern is the logical goof that Pirsig
> >himself performed after pointing to the container logic. And what the
> >SOMists grab as "gefundenes fressen".
>
> You have really extended the meaning of SOM, haven't you? I remember an old
> topic about that once, you would probably answer: Everything that isn't *MY*
> view is SOM. Very convenient, but dishonest beyond belief.
>
> Of course the MoQ is an intellectual pattern. It's described in a book, it
> can't be anything else. Just give it a rest.
>
>
> >> >"Description in terms of substance" = SOM =  the intellectual level,
> >> >cannot contain the MOQ which is "description in terms of Quality".
> >> >Get it?
> >
> >> Ah, so a description of a bird can't contain a description of the
> >> elephant on which the bird sits and eats? Because the elephant is
> >> bigger than the bird??
> >
> >What trite and childish word-play. Go join Arlo!
>
> No. *You* go and consult your logic faculty. I'm all ears.
>
>
> >> Come on! Both are *descriptions*. A description can refer to, i.e.
> >> contain, any other description because intellectual patterns are
> >> recursive. It's not ugly, or something we should avoid. It's just one
> >> of the aspects of the intellectual level that makes it so powerful.
> >
> >When Pirsig says "description in terms of ..." he means language used
> >to describe, but not language in itself as the 4th level. Language is
> >from deep inside the 3rd. level when it was used to "describe reality in
> >terms of  social value". Then the 4th level that began describing reality
> >in terms of "substance" (as P.says meaning "in terms of objectivity or
> >rationality) .
>
> The day you visit the universal stack you might also understand the real
> difference between language and intellectual pattern. Not to happen any day
> soon, I fear.
>
>
> >> >Shows the same fallacy, namely that "using the intellectual level" to
> >> > you spells using our language-conveyed intelligence, and with such a
> >> > grand mistake your are lost MOQ-wise.
> >
> >> No, I have just seen the MoQ levels outside of your confined human
> >> perspective stack.
> >
> >Muster your attention. To you Q-intellect represents the  non human -
> >objective - perspective that looked back on the past as confined inside
> >the subjective perspective
>
> For the umpteenth time, what makes you say the non human perspective is
> objective? Have you missed every quantum mechanics discussion we have ever
> had here? Or don't you believe in the uncertainty principle? Or quantum
> mechanics at all? There's no scientist left that, in this light, believes in
> an objective reality anymore, and it doesn't matter one bit if the observer
> is human or not. Have you totally missed that? Quantum mechanics agrees with
> the MoQ. We can leave the human perspective stack and use MoQs rules also in
> the physical (NOT OBJECTIVE) reality.
>
>
> >  Now, enter the MOQ that sees all from the
> >DQ/SQ (moral) perspective and has intellect a static stage which
> >perspective is the objective-over-subjective one. Now one sees
> >intellect's desperate need to see the MOQ as an intellectual pattern,
> >intellect is a static stage that can't change its spots and from there the
> >"free" MOQ looks like a return to the human perspective and must be
> >confined inside intellect where it can be mutilated to fit the S/O matrix.
> >But no longer can intellect keep the MOQ confined, after more than
> >ten years struggle and thanks to a little group it's safe. Your own
> >peculiar "stack" idea - part of making the MOQ an objective, scientific
> >tool - has died, MOQ's own immune system spotted it as foreign.
>
> When I read that, I thought of one peculiar circumstance. Your SOL comes
> from you, only you. But the stack idea has come from both me and Andy
> separately. That makes the stack idea infinitely more viable than your SOL.
> The SOL may be just you having bad luck when thinking one day. But the
> stacks came from two independent sources and is bound to come up again even
> if both Andy and I leave tomorrow. Go check your statistics faculty.
>
>    Magnus
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser