[MD] Stacks

[John Carl]

Excellent Platt,

And it seems you have just offered another example of "non subjective
thinking".
Those cells Pirsig talks about, are exhibiting an intelligence in the
example, but are they subjects contemplating objects?

I think not!

John

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:26 AM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bo:
>
> It may be gibberish for some to understand your clipped phrase, "from
> intellect
> seen." Also it may be hard for some to comprehend your sentence, "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." At least these sorts of phrases and descriptions were a stumbling
> block
> for me for a long time. But, at some moment, exactly when I don't recall,
> the
> light came on. I remembered Pirsig's own description of the conflict
> between
> what the biological level "sees" contrasted with the intellect level's
> perspective.
>
> "That explained what had happened tonight. The first intelligence out there
> in
> the cabin disliked him and still did.. It was this second intelligence that
> had
> come in and made love. The first Lila had nothing to do with it.
> These cellular patterns have been lovers for millions of years and they
> aren't
> about to be put off by these recent little intellectual patterns that know
> almost nothing about what is going on. The cells want immortality. They
> know
> their days are numbered. That is why they make such a commotion.
> They're so old. They began to distinguish this-body on the left from this
> body
> on the right more than a billion years ago. Beyond comprehension. Of course
> they pay no attention to mind patterns. In their scale of time, mind is
> just
> some ephemera that arrived a few moments ago, and will probably pass away
> in a
> few moments more.
> "That was what he had seen that he was trying to hang on to now, this
> confluence where the mental and the biological patterns are both awake and
> aware of each other and in conflict." (Lila,15)
>
> Biological patterns aware?  A foreign concept. Yet, it's a premise we can
> adopt
> to better interpret MOQ -- imagining how values appear to patterns at
> different
> levels. While we may highly value " thinking" our cells could care less and
> our
> atoms even less so. Not your everyday way of looking at the world, which is
> why
> some agree that the MOQ is a Copernican-like revolution.
>
> Platt
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2010 at 10:28, skutvik at online.no wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>