[MD] LC Comments

[Magnus Berg]

Hi John

> 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.

Sure, and a 100 billion flies can't be wrong. Eat shit.

Come on, if everyone thought like that, we would probably be living in 
North Korea.

I had quite a good time in the early days when more "classicists" were 
around, i.e. it was more talk about the SQ side of Q than DQ. Now it's 
the other way around, but I'll just try to compensate.

> 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.

Yes, and I wrote to Dan today how I feel about that. I just don't think 
it would be worth the bother if the levels *weren't* the territory.

>> 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.

To me, and other classicists like me I assume, that's the problem. It's 
of course good for people who just want to talk, to make conversation. 
But I'm not here for that.

> And you were hoping for something a bit more rigid and defined, I suppose.
>
> Finite players play within boundaries
> Infinite players play with boundaries.

You think I haven't played with boundaries? Then why are so many 
abhorred by my new definitions of the levels, or my new number of 
levels. Perhaps I misunderstood you there, but if you tried to hint that 
it's a more dynamic endeavour to play with boundaries than to play 
within them, you lose.

> 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.

Oh no, no way! Objectivism is already dead within physics because of 
quantum mechanics. What the MoQ can bring to them is a philosophical 
framework that can encompass those new findings, because SOM is dumbfounded.

You think you could have avoided the confusion if you joined earlier? 
Allow me to doubt that.

> 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.

Why? So laymen can have their go with the LHC particle collider for a 
few days? Or perhaps to play with Hubble and waste precious time before 
it dies forever? No thanks.

However, I can go along with the level playing field provided one thing. 
That you first let us thoroughly examine the MoQ and make sure it works. 
*Then* we can make a simpler version of it for the masses to use. As it 
is now, it's not ready for that. It's like Einstein's relativity, more 
or less the only thing that are common knowledge about that is E=mc2 and 
perhaps "everything is relative", but that crept out in the public 
*after* the theory was completed and proven, not while it was being 
developed.

> 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.

What, should I play simple-minded and conform to the norm to fit in 
better? Back to North Korea I see. No thanks.

	Magnus