[MD] LC Comments

[X Acto]

It's all an intellectual explanation Magnus.


 


----- Original Message ----
From: Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 7:09:23 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] LC Comments

Hi Dan

> Dan:
> Let's begin by saying the levels in the MOQ are provisional... they
> describe reality but we won't actually find levels "out there" to
> examine and investigate.

Yes we do!

I have spent 13 years on and off to investigate those levels and I think I've 
come up with a far better understanding than anyone has ever shown here.

And since this is one big issue that seems to alienate me from all the rest 
here, there's just no way for me to have a deep conversation with anyone 
anymore. It always ends here. I think the levels are for real, that they really 
do reflect the reality "out there". You try to use them yourself a few 
paragraphs down, you try to tell me what a house is made of and how its built by 
biological people, but every time you use the levels, you make it up as you go 
along. It will probably end up differently every time. If you, Pirsig and 
someone else with a similar understanding of the levels were to explain how a 
few things were built up by the levels, your explanations would be, if not 
completely, so substantially different. And if you were to explain it again a 
few months later, it would be different again.

What kind of a *system* is that? It's no system at all, it's just an ad-hoc... I 
don't know, fairy-tale generator.

Do you really think the MoQ can make an impact in the scientific community with 
four levels that "doesn't really reflect reality, we're just guessing every time 
we want to analyse a thing"? Shouldn't that *be* the aim? To make such an 
impact? I remember it was in the beginning of the Lila Squad, but it doesn't 
seem to be that anymore.

> Finally, the MOQ doesn't "allow" anything. The MOQ is a set of
> intellectual patterns of value that describe reality... it is not
> reality itself that can dictate what is allowed and what is not. This
> line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry.

Yes, I'm sorry too.

> 
>> Magnus:
>> Then, he continues with something, I don't know what to call it without
>> sounding disrespectful, but the word lame is what I really mean. Anyway,
>> "The hand that taps the computer keys is biological."?? Come on! We're
>> trying to be serious here but *that's* disrespectful!
> 
> Dan:
> My hand is biological. How do we interact with the computer but
> through tapping keys on the keyboard?

An automatic backup-program can for example read *all* intellectual patterns 
from a computer. There are countless ways for computers to interact with 
eachother without any human intervention whatsoever, just accept that and then 
try to think again how a computer supports those intellectual patterns.

What I was trying to explain with the house example (and with the broken 
computer) is that a thing that possesses a certain type of patterns must be 
supported by all lower patterns *at that very instant*. Whether some other 
patterns have once supported it by building it is completely irrelevant. It's 
like saying a room should be lit up because you once lit it up with a 
flashlight.

> I guess you're saying you feel RMP's annotation is overly simplistic
> and disrespectful. Okay. Point taken. I prefer short and elegant to
> long and windy but we all have our preferences.

No, not just simplistic. Metaphysically irrelevant.

> Dan:
> We built the goddamn thing and you're saying we can't fix it? Huh.
> Stuff breaks down all the time. It's the nature of patterns. They
> arise, flourish, and pass away. Look around you, Magnus. Is there any
> permanence? I see none.

Right! But you still don't realize the relevance of that do you? At one instant, 
the computer was working and supported intellectual patterns. The next moment it 
didn't work anymore. That means that some supporting pattern failed, which 
caused a snowball effect so that the intellectual patterns vanished as well. But 
it was *not* the biological pattern "the computer builder" who broke it. It 
wasn't even the computer operator that caused it to fail. It failed by itself. 
So before it failed, the intellectual patterns were supported by some social, 
some biological and some inorganic patterns in the computer. After it failed, 
just an instant later, some of those patterns were gone, and so the rest above 
it failed too.

Do you now understand what I mean? Do you understand that a computer that 
supports intellectual patterns must be supported by all lower levels at all 
times, otherwise it doesn't work?

> Dan:
> I don't know, Magnus. It looks to me alike you're saying the MOQ is
> some kind of set-in-stone metaphysics that only allows for certain
> things. It is not. The MOQ is a Dynamic document. It will work until
> something better comes along.

Don't just use that old standard disclaimer. Do something about it! Make it work 
for all gedanken experiments!

> Dan:
> Subjective and objective are shorthand terms for patterns of value.
> How is that wrong?

Because subject and object is created by the Quality event.
And a Quality event is of one the levels, either intellectual, social, 
biological or inorganic.
So, at each inorganic quality event, there's a subject and an object.
At each biological quality event, there's a subject and an object.
At each social quality event, there's a subject and an object.
At each intellectual quality event, there's a subject and an object.

If Pirsig were telling the truth and all intellectual and social patterns were 
subjective and all biological and inorganic patterns were objective, then the 
only possible quality events would be:

intellectual-biological
intellectual-inorganic
social-inorganic
social-biological

That's what's wrong.

    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