[MD] Unkludging the MoQ.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Dave T.

13 Aug. :

You had said.
> > > However there is not any dispute that sometime, somewhere, there
> > > was a transcendent leap in the quality of human animal's brain to
> > > process, store, and use information in ways that no other animals
> > > can. It doesn't really make a whole lot of difference whether it
> > > was biological or social event or some combination of hundreds of
> > > each the leap happened. And the best word candidate for that leap
> > > is "intellect". And by RMP law you can't have an emergent quality
> > > without an emergent level.

I had commented:
> > Agree, the human neocortex brain was clearly the biological
> > "carbon" for the social development. The tendency to see
> > "societies" with animals and even lower down is a failure to
> > understand the MORALS of Q-society which is not merely banding
> > together - animals do a lot of that for survival reasons - but
> > that of rising above biology's "eat and proliferate" morality and
> > it's here "traditional" morals enters existence. Moreover the
> > biological-social transition is where matter changes into mind as
> > many seem to believe (based on the orthodox theory how the MOQ
> > subsumes SOM)

> [Dave]
> According to Darwin's theory of evolution the human animal evolved
> from a long line of animals. Right? In a couple of months we (the
> people in my neighborhood) will be starting annual maintenance to
> prepare our houses for the winter. Yours may have already started
> the same thing. I'm quite sure the squirrel couples in my front yard
> will be doing similar maintenance on their winter homes at the same
> time. How is my social pattern (home maintenance) more moral, a
> higher level of quality, than theirs?

Squirrels and whatever preparing for winter ..etc. - what the heck has 
these biological trends to do with the Q-social level? Home 
maintenance? Trees shedding their leaves it's a kind of "home 
maintenance" and/or preparing house for the winter. With this take of 
what the social level is ... no wonder      

> As you see below I'm not sure we are all screwing up by confusing
> the word designating a social pattern for the actions, habits, or
> behaviors that the social patterns are built from.

More strange notions of what the Q-social value is.

Bo:
> > The "Great Leap forward" is the social-intellectual transition ...
> > no?
 
[Dave] 
> Absolutely, but it's much more probable this transition happened
> much closer to 60,000 years ago as opposed to 2500 as RMP claims.
> Which leads into what has always bothered me about the intellectual
> level. By RMP's account it leaps into being nearly fully formed and
> capable of dominating Grecian culture nearly immediately.

Had RMP been consistent on the 4th. level all would have been OK, 
but one moment he correctly speaks about "no use speaking about 
intellect before the Greeks" the next he is into some intellect "helping 
society to find food ...etc" and your troubles stem from the latter - 
intelligence/intellect - confusion, and you don't seem willing to snap out 
of this fallacy, it has become your "raison d'etre".  

> If you compare that to what happened when the biological level
> emerged if we were there with all our current best technology we
> probably wouldn't have noticed that change for millions of years.
> Even if we grant that intellectual patterns evolve much more rapidly
> that all the others what happen in Greece was faster than the recent
> computer revolution which has taken over 200 years.

Well, here's the futility of the the Science-MOQ comparison. The 
inorganic-out-of-"chaos" we leave it to cosmology's "Big Bang". So why 
start with a new quasi-scientific theory about  life's emergence? And 
from here the MOQ levels take leave of any scientific counterparts. 
The social level has has nothing to do with sociology" and even more 
removed from "psychology" is intellect. But the 4th. level did not start 
abruptly with Parmenides & Co. It may have gone on for at thousand 
years before the text-books philosophers.       

> More importantly he is mistaking an increase of quality in kind, to
> the emergence of a new kind of quality. If Pierce and linguists are
> to be believed all oral languages are at the most basic, abstract
> signs (words) combined with more signs, grammatical rules. And by
> any account oral languages came tens of thousand of years before
> Classic Greece. Again if you define one of the key qualities of the
> intellectual level as the ability to create and manipulate abstract
> signs the level had to emerge with the ability. The first innsy
> wiennsy bit of abstract ability. Just like the first ameba or what
> ever really was the first biological pattern.

I'm the wrong address about language or symbol manipulation having 
anything to do with the intellectual level. Intellect as SOM is the only 
viable definition. 

> Well as I understand it, Peirce was some type  of an idealist
> (primarily his own). RMP tippy-toes that line but wants to land on
> the realism side. But I do think Peirce might be helpful on the
> upper two levels. For instance from the source you love to hate.
> Which is just as confusing to me as it is Dan Glover.

Peirce had left SOM - both its materialism and idealism, but his 
Semiosis grounded to a halt with the "trinity" stage . About "dancing" I 
leave to the party-goers ;-). 

Bodvar