[MD] LC Comments

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo, and Andy

Sorry about the delay. Been having more fun in the other thread.

On 2010-07-15 10:28, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> No,  the MOQ claims that only at the intellectual level is there a
> distinction between theory and reality. Look Magnus you need a
> update on the basics.
>
> P. of ZAMM's "hate object" was rationality, what he called SOM and
> his claim was that there was Golden Age when Quality (Good) and
> Reality were united in the Aretê Attitude. Then came SOM and
> destroyed the idyll by its Subject/Object split (I skip the finer points)
> Then LILA and the MOQ and now you see that everything points to the
> Aretê as the Social - and SOM as the Intellectual level. My reason for
> the this is that the social level IS  the very same non-dualist attitude
> (why people are drawn to religion) and intellect the very same S/O
> dualism in so many forms.

Ah, that, yes, I forgot you're firmly stuck in that human society stack. 
I tried to explain that to you once, but I don't remember any progress 
so I guess there weren't any. But did you read Andy's and my discussion 
about different stacks of levels in the computer thread? We agreed there 
are for example one stack in a computer that is built on our physical 
inorganic level. But then there's another, virtual, stack built using 
the computer's laws of nature. These laws doesn't include gravity or 
magnetism, but only digital operations such as and, or, not etc.

When you discuss the MoQ, you always start with the stack starting with 
human perception of inorganic stuff, but you totally disregard the stack 
starting with our physical universe. The stack where inorganic quality 
events happens between physical objects without anyone seeing them, not 
where a cave man see an apple fall and concludes that apples fall when 
dropped.

Andy, perhaps you can rephrase that. I'm not sure my language is 
compatible with Bo's, even though we're both Scandinavians.

Bo, really, try to understand what I say now: The notion of different 
stacks are *important*. We will *never* get anywhere if we don't 
acknowledge that we are mostly talking from within different stacks of 
levels. It's so refreshing for me to read stuff from Andy such as:

"I'm not referring
to anything new, it's just a short word I'm using for any given
instance of the static patterns illustrated here:
http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emm.html#page13
"

There isn't just *one* instance of the levels. We can see them 
everywhere. If you can see that you're using *one* of those instances 
for your reasoning, not *the* instance, then we will be able to really 
communicate for the first time since the last millennium.

	Magnus