[MD] LC Comments

[John Carl]

Hi Magnus,


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.
>
>
Me too!



> 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.



Ah well, there's the rub.  If you generalize to that extent, then obviously
you know where the  problem lies.  I mean, if there's no way to have a deep
conversation with ANYONE, then the problem lies with you.

Now me personally, I can't have a deep conversation with dmb, or evidently,
you.  But otherwise its easy.

I. like Dan, have come to think of the levels as a "playing field" - a map,
rather than the territory.  And it seems we all pick out varying features of
this map to navigate by, depending on where we're at and where we want to
go.

For instance, I don't believe the 4th level is just "intellectual".  I think
it's a dualistic split between intellect and art, a classic/romantic split,
if you will.

I think social patterning is created by the emergence of self/other
realization in maternal/infant nurture.  And that's also where emotion
arises.  Thus, mammals share with humans, emotions but not intellect or art.

Out of this, I also disparage the idea that emotions are biologically
formed.  They're expressed biologically, but they arise in reaction to
social inputs, patterning and strivings.

See? That's my unique use of the level playing field.




> 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.
>


That's what is so great about a level playing field.


>
> 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.
>
>
And you were hoping for something a bit more rigid and defined, I suppose.

Finite players play within boundaries
Infinite players play with boundaries.



> 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.
>
>

It was suggested to me once, long ago, that I oughta join the Lila Squad.
Now I wish I had.  Perhaps all this confusion could have been avoided.

If the purpose of the MoQ is to make an impact upon the scientific
community, then Bo is right and the highest aspirations of humanity can only
end in SOM.   You're keeping Objectivism enthroned by saying the purpose of
the MoQ is to impact science.  The purpose of the MoQ is to bring about a
level playing field, where even non-professional, non-academics and
non-scientist can have as good a grip on existence as any.

You seem like a pretty learned guy Magnus, and that is undoubtedly your
undoing.  Learned guys don't have much tolerance for the simple-minded.


>
> 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?
>
>
A book in an unknown language is just an inorganic object.  A computer
without power, the same.  Of all the levels, the 4th is the most fragile and
dependent.

Interpretation is all.



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


> 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
>
>
I see the trouble now.  You've got this great map in your hands, but you're
holding it upside down!

That's what's  wrong.

John