[MD] Social level for humans only

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Andre

On 2010-08-22 21:33, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Magnus:
> According to you, it seems I can only experience inorganic and
> biological events. But that's just not true. I can experience social and
> intellectual events as well.
>
> Andre
> I am going to blow this up a bit Magnus, if you do not mind, because I
> have noticed this over and over again with interpretations that have
> nothing to do with the MOQ and everything to do with the idea of trying
> to 'frame' someone for 'trapping' someone into a particular way of
> reduction.
> Of course you experience social and intellectual events! I thought we
> are talking MOQ stuff here and not 'tripping eachother up' in SOM land..

I wasn't trying to trap you in SOM land, I did try to to show an 
inconsistency in your point of view of the MoQ though.

And, I don't know, isn't that what we usually try to do here? Perhaps 
not "trap" eachother, but at least try to show inconsistencies in the 
other's reasoning when different opinions surface?

> Magnus (previously):
>
> Anthony has mistaken the int-soc border with the soc-bio border.It isthe
> social value that makes ants carry all that food and other stuff to the
> hill, if each ant was ruled by its biological values, he would run off
> and care only for himself.
>
> Andre (previously) in response: With all due respect it seems you have a
> very narrow idea about
> biological patterns of value.
>
> Magnus: Why's that? Do you think:
>
> Andre:
> No I do not for one minute think that: 'since Magnus thinks...' I get
> the impression that since cooperation and caring behaviours are
> displayed at the organic level that YOU think they are social quality
> displays. I am simply pointing out that they belong to the organic
> level. The social level may have copied and imitated some of those
> values because they were regarded as useful but they do belong at the
> organic level, from an organic point of view.

I disagree, inheritance is simply the biological process used by the 
social level. Just as all higher levels are using lower levels for its 
own purposes.

I think you're confusing the biological reproduction process with the 
biological/organic level. They are not identical.

> Magnus:
> And what is the meaning of reality? Not sure that's a "meaningful"
> question.
>
> Andre:
> It is as meaningful as saying:'42'. It is not this, not that'. The
> question of 'meaning' immediately drives us into the intellectual level
> and that,will give us only provisional answers. ( think of the Buddhist
> concept of 'suffering'...Gautama was no fool).

I didn't get much of that. As meaningful as '42'? Not meaningful at all 
you mean?

But I agree it drives us into the intellectual level, but then we have 
already split up the reality into DQ/SQ and the levels.

> Magnus:
> And I provided just one of the contradictions that doesn't work in my
> last post, but I see you conveniently failed to include that (the 1, 2,
> 3 chain of reasoning). May I ask why?
>
> Andre:
> Your 1,2,3, chain of reasoning to which I 'failed' to respond:
>
> Here they come:
> 1. The MoQ is an intellectual pattern, right? Even Pirsig has said that
> when confronted with one of Bo's ideas.
>
> Andre:
> I do not think that Pirsig felt 'confronted' by Bo. The MOQ IS an
> intellectual POV. Bodvar felt unsupported and let down by Mr. Pirsig
> himself because Bo's interpretation of the quality thing was different
> to Pirsig's Quality thing.
>
> 2. You, me, Horse and most others here on MD can remember large parts of
> the MoQ in our heads. We don't go and open the book every time we want
> to check something.
>
> Andre:
> Most definately, it must be somewhere...reinvented every day...I am sure
> the in(organic) PATTERNS that we call 'brains' have something to do with
> this.

Reinvented every day?

To me, the very purpose of *static* patterns are that they have an 
ability to stay static from one moment to the next. That goes for all 
types of value, not just inorganic and organic.

So, no, I disagree very much that the intellectual patterns you have 
acquired throughout your life, all your memories, are reinvented when 
you need them. Or perhaps you use the word reinvented instead of 
recalled from storage?

> 3. 2. Implies that you, me, Horse and most others on MD are capable of
> supporting intellectual patterns.
>
> Andre:
> Not sure what you mean by 'supporting'. Let's say that we have the
> capacity to 'tune-in' to those waves that we are talking about. Perhaps
> that may be a fruitful way of doing this: the 'brain' is the
> particle/wave converter of sounds, vision, taste, feeling, smell... into
> concepts, ideas etc , etc. all of which are accessible and retrievable
> within the static domain. It is an intellectual way of experiencing?

I don't see it that way at all. It sounds as if all knowledge, yours and 
mine and everyone else's, are buzzing around in the ether for anyone to 
listen to? Or perhaps each person's knowledge is encrypted using a 
private PGP key?

I'd like to summon Occam's razor in this case, which explanation is the 
simplest? That everyone stores personal information in his/her brain, or 
that all info floats around everywhere and only one person may access it?

> Magnus:
> To me, it only reinforces my view that intellectual patterns are stored
> using the language of his brain. The language of his brain may be
> slightly different from others, but since he's dead, the language, and
> with it, also the contents are gone.
>
> Andre:
> This I find incomprehensible. '...stored using the language of his
> brain'?? The brain, as an in(organic) pattern of value does not store
> anything Magnus. The pattern performs a function, neither of the two are
> 'it', an 'entity'. All is a continuous flow... brilliant!

It's a continuous flow, yes, but of quality events. And not just organic 
and inorganic, but also social and intellectual. And I'm pretty sure the 
brain stores quite a large chunk of info. I've explained the language 
part enough times in this thread already. Just re-read.

	Magnus