[MD] Redressing the MoQ

[Magnus Berg]

Bo

> First of all LILA is no intellectual pattern, but a MOQ pattern that has a
> sub-set (a static level) called "intellect". The fact that it is a book with
> signs on paper does not make it any more "intellectual" than Egyptian
> hieroglyphs  ... or the "Old books of the Bible" that Pirsig declared
> without intellectual content.

You're half right, but have always missed the point about "things" being made of 
different levels at the same time.

The signs on the paper are made of ink, and the same book in electronic form is 
made of ones and zeros, or transistors in different states if you will. That's 
not what we mean by something like "have you read Lila"? When we ask that, we 
don't care whether it was read in a book, in English, Norwegian, Swedish or if 
it was read on a computer. What we mean is whether we have read the content, 
i.e. the intellectual patterns stored/represented by those ink signs or 
transistor states. The content is the intellectual patterns.

And BTW, I have no idea what you mean by 'a MOQ pattern that has a sub-set (a 
static level) called "intellect"'? How does that fit into the MoQ with a first 
division of DQ/SQ and then SQ into the static levels? It seems you have added 
another division somewhere.


> Language proper surely started as a social means (pattern) of
> communication, but "patterns-to-meaning mapping"? An animal can
> well "map" the meaning of bared fangs or an amoeba the meaning of
> sulfuric acid. But the lower level can't "map" the patterns of the higher
> thus intellect-dwellers can't recognize the MOQ but keep insisting that
> LILA is an intellectual artefact.

The meaning of bared fangs and the meaning of sulfuric acid are two very 
different things. Bared fangs has a meaning, it's pure communication. On the 
other hand, sulfuric acid destroys the amoeba's inorganic patterns, it doesn't 
stand a chance to do one thing or the other when it hits. An animal seeing bared 
fangs can fight or flee.

>> Without that mapping, the text is nothing but ink. Or in other words,
>> the intellectual patterns are dependent on the social pattern language.
>
> Well, without knowing the language words are just sounds and without
> understanding the MOQ language LILA is just an intellectual "sound".

Lila is no different than any other book from an intellectual perspective. And 
there is no MoQ level above the intellectual that you somehow need to acquire to 
understand the MoQ

>>> This is of particular concern with the intellectual level. You said
>>> Lila, the text, is an intellectual pattern. How do you know? How is
>>> it we make this distinction? How do we you know that distinction is
>>> correct?
>
> Had D.T. asked this from the MOQ premises it would have been most
> apt.  As mentioned, LILA is no more intellectual than the hieroglyhs
> were, but is as inscrutable to intellect-dwellers as the hieroglyphs were
> before the Rosetta Stone.
>
>> Not really sure how to answer that without reciting large parts of the
>> essay. I guess my way of knowing is that I have, at least to myself,
>> made a clear distinction of what is what and how everything sticks
>> together. I spent a few years trying to find holes in that system,
>> resulting in a slightly revised system and the first essay. I still
>> try to find holes in my system, but as time goes by and I still can't
>> find any, I tend to increase my sense of knowing these things you ask.
>
> I just found a hole bigger than the solar system.

Would you mind pointing with a bigger pen? I missed it completely.

>> From the essay:
>>>> ³Intellectual patterns use the language provided by the society to
>>>> simulate another layer of static quality. By doing this,
>>>> intellectual patterns can build models of its own reality and
>>>> manipulate the models without manipulating the reality.
>>>> Intellectual Quality Events are associations, inspiration etc.²
>>>> [Undressing on MoQ site]
>
> Don't you think social level cultures - the Egyptians or Babylonians
> f.ex. - could build models, carry out calculations, or simply think in
> beforehand how things could be made? Only they had not achieved
> the intellectual lingo about "manipulating models different from Reality"
> They surely had as many association and inspirations as ourselves.

Of course they could, which of course means they had just as much insight into 
the intellectual level as we do.

	Magnus