[MD] Stacks

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Magnus

I stick to the Newton issue (will address the stacks in the next post)                   
 
You said:
> Is that right? So, gravity did exist before a human formulated a
> theory about it?

We accuse each other of SOM-ism, but here is a shining example of 
you being unable to snap out of SOM's dichotomy: Either are things 
man-made or they exists "out there". The Gravity example was meant 
to demonstrate how an intellectual theory changes the intellectual 
outlook, but the SOM-induced "intellect=mind and mind=human" never 
fails. Strange as it sounds Newton isn't a "man" in a MOQ context, but 
a compound of all levels and the Gravity Theory an intellectual - 
scientific - product that came to dominate that level. At the social level 
-  and I mean from within that level, not from intellect's view - there is 
no gravity, the fact that things fell to the ground was part of the overall 
order. So again, the true MOQ has no human perspective, only the 
weak interpreters who regarded the MOQ as an intellectual pattern ... 
meaning a human mind-pattern.  

> But you make it quite clear what you think when you write "is". You
> simply see the universal stack through the eyes of the intellectual
> level of the human perspective stack. Then you say that what you
> perceive through those eyes are identical to, i.e. "is", what's on the
> other side because you're afraid of assuming you see a reality "out
> there" with a mind.

>From SOM or intellect seen it's just madness to suggest a perspective 
that excludes humans and their "mind", but the MOQ's first job in office 
is to reject the Subject/Object (including its mind/matter version) 
distinction as reality's ground, ergo, there is no matter (this everybody 
seem happy to accept) but when it comes to "there is no mind" most 
wince, but if the subject is the "measure of all things" we better switch 
to Ham's "Essentialism".  
  
> Let me ask you one thing: You say that gravity didn't exist before
> Newton, right? And that it changed somewhat with Einstein. You don't
> acknowledge any difference between gravity and the theory of gravity,
> right? 

First, the intellectual theory on as signs on a sheet of paper isn't the 
inorganic pattern that makes things fall, but the theory made that 
pattern become "gravity". You will not find any references to - not only 
gravity - but the phenomena  in the few pre-intellectual text there are, 
there was simply not a "nature" before intellect.  

Then, imagine a biological pattern, take a flu virus. Flu
> viruses have a nasty habit of changing now and then. They adapt to new
> medication so they can spread as much as possible. When we analyse this
> flu virus, they call it a little bit different every year because it
> seems to be different every year. Just like gravity, we need to adapt
> our understanding of the pattern to be able to make new medication when
> required, just as we needed a refined understanding of gravity when
> aiming for the moon. Now, in your view, is there a difference between
> these two refined understandings of gravity vs the virus? 

The 2nd. level is below the 3rd. and if there were no theorizing  about 
what cause things to fall on the social level there were absolutely no 
"theorizing" about anything at the biological level (LOL *) Gravity is 
science so I believe it's no difference between a new scientific theory 
creating a new physics (not physical)  reality and a new ditto creating a 
new biology reality (not biological). But again MOQ is not interested in 
science, its business is the value relationship and moral codes there 
are between the levels. So you will understand that I'm no fan of any 
Q-versions of the scientific disciplines. "Give unto intellect what 
intellect's is and unto the MOQ ... etc.         

*) The levels are as present today as ever, it's just more easy to see 
their workings when they were "leading edge". 

Bodvar