[MD] Unkludging the MoQ.

[David Thomas]

All,

I'm replying to my own original message which just might be a way to help
reorient the directions of threads when they bleed over into every other one
as they often do.

To summarize I posted this revised layout of the MoQ that I think accurately
reflect the latest advances in evolutionary sciences, brain research, and
other related fields.

                                                                >written...
                                                          >oral.............
                                                     >Intellectual Level>>>|
                                                   >> tool making
                                                  >>social human........
                                                 >>pointing.............
                                       >>social animal.....................
                                       >>Social Level>>>>>>>>>>>>>|
                                               >>>human brain & intell...
                                     >>>animal brain & intelligence...
                      >>>Biological Level>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inorganic/"Organic" Level>>>> |
History of Parallel & Series Evolution of MoQ Levels>>>DQ-Present

I've add a few other stands based on some information recently gleaned from
PBS replays on recent paloarcheology discoveries and an Alan Alda hosted
series on the brain. The question that Alda's series explores is "What is
the 'spark' that makes us human?" Their conclusion is the spark that
separates humans from animals are,  Abstraction and Imagination. Hardly
earth shattering. I added, "pointing" and "tool making", above based on
these shows even though they seem to be ho hum no brainers. I'll get into
the why's below. (No I will not. I get distracted and go off on a tangent as
you will see. Adult Onset ADD)

The responses to the original post have also been pretty ho hum. Though they
range from "So what?" to "Blasphemy" the basic feeling I get is something
like, "Hey this is metaphysics, general stuff, you're sweating the details
just way, way, too much." Krimmel pointed out that since everything is based
on each individual's POV that dicking with the levels is a futile exercise
because:

>[Krimmel]
> They are not laws or metaphysical primitives. Moving the boundary lines around
> is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

This has a very post-modern, deconstructionist, relativistic ring to it but
it did trigger a synapse this morning. How about this POV?

The central theme of both books is RMP's quest to answer the question, "What
is Quality?" In Lila he concludes that "Quality is the primary reality of
the world" and goes on to elaborate on that insight or claim. This whole
process is based on ZaMM insights that are summarized in Lila like this:

>[Lila-pg 53]
> In his book Phaedrus had tried to save Quality from metaphysics by refusing to
> define it, by placing it outside the dialectical chess board. Anything that is
> undefined is outside metaphysics, since metaphysics can only function with
> defined terms. If you can't define it you can't argue about it. He had
> demonstrated that even though you can't define Quality you still must agree
> that it exists, since a world from which value is subtracted becomes
> unrecognizable.

While "Quality" maybe the primary objective RMP like all philosophers has
other things on his agenda. So the second item on his agenda was:

> ZaMM pg 202
> In any event, he said, no one was really accepted in Chicago until he¹d
> rubbed someone out. It was time Aristotle got his.

Aristotle's invention of substance (object) vs everything else (subject)
make him in RMP's mind the father of SOM. Further he formalized the argument
elevating the value of Truth over Good. He dissed Quality. Third agenda item
was to clear the name of Sophists and rhetoricians.

>ZaMM pg 98
> The rhetoricians of ancient Greece were the first teachers in the history of
> the Western world. Plato vilified them in all his works to grind an axe of his
> own and since what we know about them is almost entirely from Plato they¹re
> unique in that they¹ve stood condemned throughout history without ever having
> their side of the story told. The Church of Reason that I talked about was
> founded on their graves

As a professional rhetorician his skills are to some degree viewed in
Western society as lesser, of a lower quality than say those of a scientist.
So he is personally dissed by all of Western Philosophy.

> ZaMM pg 216
> Socrates had been one of Phædrus¹ childhood heroes and it shocked and angered
> him to see this dialogue taking place. He filled the margins of the text with
> answers of his own. These must have frustrated him greatly, because there was
> no way of knowing how the dialogue would have gone if these answers had been
> made. At one place Socrates asks to what class of things do the words which
> Rhetoric uses relate. Gorgias answers, "The Greatest and the Best." Phædrus,
> no doubt recognizing Quality in this answer, has written "True!" in the
> margin. But Socrates responds that this answer is ambiguous. He is still in
> the dark. "Liar!" writes Phædrus in the margin, and he cross-references a page
> in another dialogue where Socrates makes it clear he could not have been "in
> the dark."
> Socrates is not using dialectic to understand rhetoric, he is using it to
> destroy it, or at least to bring it into disrepute, and so his questions are
> not real questions at all...they are just word-traps which Gorgias and his
> fellow rhetoricians fall into. Phædrus is quite incensed by all this and
> wishes he were there.

When he gets into these details, being stressed to the max anyway, he goes
ballistic and craters. After the state presses his reset button, he revs up
his primarily skill, rhetoric, and ZaMM was the result.

> ZaMM pg 124
> His answer was an old one belonging to a philosophic school that called itself
> realism."A thing exists," he said, "if a world without it can¹t function
> normally. If we can show that a world without Quality functions abnormally,
> then we have shown that Quality exists, WHETHER IT'S DEFINED, OR NOT" He
> thereupon proceeded to subtract Quality from a description of the world as we
> know it. [my emphasis]

This is a very subtle form of rhetorical question. In fact, the whole of
ZaMM and Lila are needed to pave the way to the reader accepting this
question uncritically. If you question it critically the whole edifice of
ZaMM, Lila, and the MoQ falls. But it also proves beyond a reasonable doubt
the power of a good rhetorician. He's lifted their names out of the mud.

What this whole question hinges on is the reader supplying the seven
kajillion meanings of quality and value they have acquired through
experience. If you replace the word "Quality" with some unknown and
undefined term like "Qiebaly" the whole paragraph meaningless. Few, if any
would agree with it.

So from this POV we the readers and discussers have been HAD by skillful
rhetoric. Which might be why the big three were so down on the skill.

I choose not to believe this POV is entirely correct, but it is an entirely
reasonable one to hold.

Since I got seriously side tracked from where I started I'll start over in
my unkludging efforts in next post.

Dave