[MD] LC Comments

[Dan Glover]

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> 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.

Dan:
So, we're all idiots here. Huh. I don't disagree. But still, why are
you wasting your precious time on a bunch of idiots?

>
> 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.

Dan:
Make it up as I go along? Come on. I thought you wanted to discuss the
RMP annotations, Magnus. And here you are being a dick.

>
> 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.

Dan:
What are you talking about? I used the framework of the MOQ to explain
the value of a house. You don't like it? Fine. But I didn't just make
it up! Where do you get that idea?

>
> 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.

Dan:
Dude, chill. You are totally misrepresenting what I said.

>
>> 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.

Dan:
Hey man, you always got Platt to talk to. He understands.

>
>>
>>> 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.

Dan:
Honestly Magnus, I have no idea what you're saying. It seems important
to you though.

>
>> 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:
Okay. How?

>
>> 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?

Dan:

No. I'm an idiot. Remember?


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:
No. No clue.

>
>> 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:
Hey man, if that's your thing, go for it. Please, though, I've got
enough on my plate just now.

>
>> 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.

Dan:
There is no reference to quality event in LILA, so far as I know. This
doesn't make a lot of sense, Magnus. But you sure seem to have it
figured.

>
> 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.

Dan:
I'm sorry to have wasted your time.

But good luck,

Dan