[MD] Stack dump overflow introduction.

[Fam. Kintziger-Karaca]

Magnus
   
27 July you gave a lecture about "stacks"

> In a possibly futile attempt at bringing us to the same table so we
> can discuss the MoQ without resorting to personal assaults every now
> and then, I'd like to introduce a new tool to our philosophy toolbox.
> It's called stacks and those who read Andy's and my discussion a few
> weeks ago may remember what it is. I have actually tried to explain it
> earlier, but Andy's new, and very natural, name for it was so apt that
> it might work better this time.

I have no comment except that the stack idea is included in the MOQ 
by the tenet about the static levels not knowing the Q context. Biology 
does not know the inorganic, as little as society knows biology. 
Knowledge is intellect's science, but its "logies" aren't the Q-levels so I 
don't know what tool the "stack" concept can be, the Q context is only 
seen from the MOQ and there the said phenomenon is already known.      

> For example, the SOL people are, I think, exclusively using what I
> call the human perspective stack. It even goes so far as to subsume
> the entire universal stack into their intellectual level. But as we
> can see here, it's actually not SOM they are subsuming, it's the
> universal stack.

If you by " SOL people" mean the strong interpreters we do not have 
any "human perspective" at all. The fact that the human organism was 
the carrier of the social level and thus is included in the "stack" under 
the intellectual level does not count. You are right about the intellectual 
level - from inside itself -   is "the universal stack", but the strong 
interpretation says  that intellect from the MOQ seen is the SOM, i.e. 
the universal perspective (the object) AND the human perspective (the 
subject). So, FYI, it's not the intellectual level that subsumes SOM, it's 
the MOQ that subsumes it by making it is own intellectual level.       

> For myself, I'm almost always using the universal stack. I'm trying to
> discuss matters from the human perspective as well, but it mostly ends
> up in a disagreement when I try to show some aspect of the level from
> some other stack. 

Both the universal stack and human stack. The social level knows no 
such dualism .... nor does the MOQ .. principally, but a moqists can 
also be intellectual, social, biological. 

> It was such a relief to discuss this with Andy because we could both
> move very easily between stacks without having to yell at each other.
> If more people could do the same, we'd be having a great time here very
> soon. 

Yes, it's always a relief to meet like-minded ;-) 

> The computer stack is of somewhat limited use here since there aren't
> that many here who are fluent in boolean logic and can understand what 
> it means to use that instead of our physical laws.

> Another cool thing about these stacks is that it gives us an
> opportunity to examine the levels much more, and to really see if they
> can stand the pressure from being tried out in every imaginable way.
> For example, the inorganic level in the universal stack are built
> using atoms and our physical laws, but the inorganic level in a
> computer is built using a completely different set of stuff and laws.
> Can we define an inorganic level that is general enough to support
> both of these stacks (and every other stack we can find, or imagine)?
> If we can, the MoQ would truly deserve the name meta-physics, because
> it would support not just one, but any physics.

But dear Magnus, "examining the levels" in a scientific sense is not 
MOQ's business, science examines physics, biology, sociology and  
psychology, but none of these correspond to the Q-levels. The MOQ 
merely says that there are these levels and how their relationships are 
Again, inorganic quality has nothing to do with SOM's inorganic ...etc.  
until the most important point is reached: INTELLECTUAL QUALITY 
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOM's INTELLECT!    

Bodvar 





Talking about the stacks, ....hmmm, i like stacks, but if we are to talk in stack terminology
we cannot avoid the inevitable "STACK_DUMP_OVERFLOW",.....
pay attention to the underscores.