[MD] Stacks

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

On 2010-07-30 10:28, skutvik at online.no wrote:
>
> 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".

And your solution? Run and hide in the safe harbour of the human 
perspective stack.

No thanks!

As I've said over and over again, even things that appear to be "out 
there", are actually also quality events. Platt put it quite nicely 
yesterday:

"cells experience events but do not react to them socially or 
intellectually. They react to these experiences biologically according 
to the static patterns of cell behavior."

And that of course goes for inorganic patterns as well, those can't 
react to events intellectually, socially or biologically, but only 
inorganically.

> 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.

So, what? Gravity is an intellectual pattern?

Wouldn't that mean that it would be immoral for a bird to fly, since it 
defies gravity which is of a higher level and therefore higher moral?

I think you need to rethink that.

> 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.

You're speaking from the human perspective stack now. In the universal 
stack, social patterns are very much dependent on gravity. Cities 
resides on the ground, they're not flying around mid air. So social 
events that happen to social patterns must always take gravity into 
account because of this dependency.

> 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.

No, the true MoQ can be applied to many stacks. It's just your 
constrained version of it that *only* has the human perspective, but 
from that perspective, there is no human perspective, so you can't see 
it. If you snap out of it, I could show your prison to you, but it seems 
you're too comfortable behind your self-made walls.

>> 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)

No Bo. I don't accept that matter doesn't exist, and I'm quite certain 
many others here reject it as well.

> 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".

Subjects come in many forms, but since you are locked in the human 
perspective, the only subject you recognise is the human subject. But an 
atom is also a subject in an inorganic quality event.

>> 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,

So, there *is* an inorganic pattern that make things fall? I never 
thought I'd hear you say that. I congratulate you on your first glimpse 
of the universal stack.

> 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.

But you just said that there *was* an inorganic pattern that made things 
fall. What was that? First you say there was an inorganic pattern that 
made things fall, and then you say there was no nature before intellect. 
Where did people live? In space?

>> 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).

I thought so. So your view can't tell the difference between a virus 
that changes, and gravity that doesn't change but only our understanding 
of it.

And you have the stomach to call such an interpretation "strong"???

> 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.

Wrong. The universal stack is all about science, it's only your human 
perspective that isn't.

Don't get me all wrong here. I *do* appreciate the human perspective 
stack and what it can tell us regarding moral and human endeavour. But 
that perspective can be so much stronger if we recognize its 
similarities with other stacks. We can examine the levels in any stack, 
and then apply what we have learned in any other stack. It's so powerful 
it's almost frightening.

	Magnus