[MD] Democritus and MoQ

[118]

Hi JA,

I have some explanations of my premises in response to your comments below.

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Jan-Anders <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
>[JA]
> I think that the purpose of the intellectual level is to deliver undeniable
> truths like "cogito ergo sum", logic and mathematical connections.

[Mark]
By my form of analysis, it would seem you are talking about human
intellect, not the intellectual level.  The human intellect is at the
biological level, it is a product of biology.  All the nerves
connected together form a human intellect.  The intellectual level
does not deliver anything, it is a level.  By the way, cogito ergo sum
is far from the truth, in my opinion.  Thinking is a function of the
brain and does not point to the self.  The self experiences the
thinking.  I cannot reveal the self any more than Descartes can.
Logic and mathematics are forms of painting.  Things are arranged by
our minds to create a sense of order, much in the same way that colors
are put together to create a landscape.  Such things are not truths,
but simply devices.  We cannot mistake the tools for the builder.
>
JA
> There is a darwinistic function in the intellectual level as "good ideas"
> survive while bad ideas fade away.

[Mark]
Again, the way I would view this is mistaking the production of human
ideas by the biological for the intellectual level.  The intellectual
level is removed from the biological level and does not (can not)
follow the same rules.  A good idea can survive in our heads, but this
is not the intellectual level.
>
JA
> How many times have i read ch 12 in Lila? 25 or 50? I really like that
> chapter. The distance to the world as "the Highland of the soul". Wherein we
> can juggle around with our clear minds....

[Mark]
I have not read it so many times.  Perhaps I should give it another
try.  Thanks for the encouragement!
>
> If we imagine a car and the key to it. Let a school class show all things
> they can do with it. Quite obvious but not so interesting.
>
> Now change the key and take a spoon instead. Let the pupils deal with the
> problem, a locked car and a spoon. What will they do with it?
> Next round, change the gear stick with a spoon.
>
> As usual I think in three dimensions and I just have to say that there must
> be a space of freedom "between" chance and necessity. In real, chance and
> necessity is not opposites but complements and we must have a third to
> complete the figure.

[Mark]
Yes perhaps.  I was creating a simple dichotomy (like static and
dynamic quality), it can be made more complicated.  Is it a necessity
that we make choices?  How do we know whether to make a choice or not;
can we choose whether to make a choice?  I would not say that chance
and necessity are opposites either, I would not call static and
dynamic quality opposites even though the terminology would suggest
such a thing.  But I agree, a third between chance and necessity could
be a witnessing of chance and necessity as we are doing now with this
analysis.
>
[JA]
> Building a tower of blocks is not a necessity and it will never be perfect.
> Its an expression of freedom. That is where the fun begins.

[Mark]
I think I am using the word necessity a little bit differently than
you.  Do we have a choice in choosing the higher quality?  I could be
possible that by making a choice of low quality we actually conceive
of it as being high quality.  We could say that we choose the worst
apple of the bunch so that others can have the better ones.  That is a
high quality choice of a low quality apple.  We do have the option to
not make choices, but that is also a choice.  It would seem that
choices are a necessity in this life.  Is it necessary to have fun?
Is freedom a necessity, or a choice.  If we choose not to be free, is
that a necessity?  It is difficult to get to the root of what is
actually a necessity and what is not.  Therefore I have divided this
realm into chance and necessity, much in the same way that Democritus
did.  It is just an adventure in logic.
>
Cheers,
Mark
>
> moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org wrote 2011-01-23 08.01:
>>
>> Hi J-A,
>> Thanks for your reply.  I started a thread concerning embodiment of
>> the levels which could also be incorporated.  I suggested that each
>> level has a unique purpose which defines it.  I have transferred some
>> of that thought to reply to your post below.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Jan-Anders<jananderses at telia.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >  Hi Mark
>>> >
>>> >  I think the difference between the social level and the intellectual
>>> > level
>>> >  is based on the existence of a distance upon the social level which is
>>> > the
>>> >  place where intellectual concepts live. Thruths, myths, tales and
>>> > questions.
>>> >  In this world where humanity look at itself and perform its choices,
>>> >  sometimes by chance and sometimes by necessity, like sailing. The
>>> > conscious
>>> >  state of the intellectual mind opens doors for other causes than
>>> > chance and
>>> >  necessity, like stupidity, greed or curiosity. The most interesting
>>> > cause to
>>> >  give fruit to something is the cause of Art, rta, Aret?. Somewhere
>>> > between
>>> >  chance and necessity.
>>
>> [Mark]
>> In my opinion, each level has a different intent.  It is difficult to
>> sense the social level or even the intellectual level from the
>> individual level, but we can provide analogies to these for discussion
>> and learning.  Each level does what it is supposed to do, and as such,
>> they are vastly different and require leaps to move in between.  We
>> have no notion of the consciousness of the social level in the same
>> way we do not know what the consciousness of the inorganic level is.
>> Our view is through the individual level, the personal consciousness,
>> or as has been denoted the biological level.
>>
>> The intellectual level is not the sum total of our intelligences, but
>> is a level with purposes different from the biological or the social.
>> The biological could be considered governed by Darwinistic rules, but
>> the intellectual level is outside those.  We are not speaking of the
>> survival of a species with the intellectual level.
>>
>> It was my intent to simplify everything into chance and necessity, as
>> governing bodies, much in the same way as static and dynamic is used
>> to describe Quality.  I believe that Aret? is a good example of
>> necessity.  Do we choose high quality, or is it a necessity to achieve
>> such?  Greed and curiosity could also be considered in the framework
>> of necessity.  Why do we choose the better life, is it a form of
>> necessity?  Are we driven to choose a better life (whatever that
>> means)?  There is a force of Aret? that we are being driven by, we
>> express such a thing in our human way.  So, my understanding of
>> Necessity is much more that just doing what it takes to stay alive.
>> It is doing that which we have been empowered and driven to do.
>>
>>> >[JA]
>>> >  A child can build a tower of blocks, it is more than something
>>> > hapening just
>>> >  out of chance, it will fall in the end by necessity as no tower can
>>> > grow to
>>> >  the sky. The balancing act is the art, rta, aret?.
>>> >
>>
>> [Mark]
>> I would also say that the building of a tower is one of necessity.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org  wrote 2011-01-21 20.17:
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  "Everything existing in the universe is the fruit of chance and
>>>> >> necessity"
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  is the one I wanted to discuss. ?Based in Democritus' insight into
>>>> >> the
>>>> >>  nature of physics, perhaps he had insight into MoQ.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  In this quote, we have split reality into chance and necessity which
>>>> >>  is another knife division of reality like the dynamic/static split.
>>>> >>  We have a pretty good analogy for what chance is, and have discussed
>>>> >>  that quite a bit in this forum. ?I do not want to belabor that side
>>>> >> of
>>>> >>  the split, but want to look into Necessity. ?I have posted what I
>>>> >> call
>>>> >>  Intent. ?This can be loosely translated as will or even desire.
>>>> >> ?This
>>>> >>  Intent is all we have when we are first introduced to this world,
>>>> >> from
>>>> >>  a personal level. ?We of course also have our physical bodies and
>>>> >> all
>>>> >>  that happens within them. ?Intent could also be translated as
>>>> >>  necessity. ?So, what is necessity? ?I suppose it could be "that
>>>> >> which
>>>> >>  we have to do". ?Why is there something that we have to do? ?Well,
>>>> >>  this is the connection with Intent. ?It is something that we come
>>>> >>  with. ?A tree is born to become a tree, that is its necessity.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  If we were to relegate the world of chance to that of static
>>>> >> quality,
>>>> >>  and consider Necessity to be the dynamic aspect of Quality, then it
>>>> >>  may be possible to begin creating analogies of Dynamic Quality based
>>>> >>  on such a premise. ?From purely the human point of view, each level
>>>> >>  could be labeled with its own Intent. ?This has actually been done
>>>> >> by
>>>> >>  some in the forum already when they state that the organic level
>>>> >> does
>>>> >>  what the organic level is supposed to do. ?Or put another way, each
>>>> >>  level exists for itself, that is its intent. ?It uses static quality
>>>> >>  to perform such necessary functions.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  In addition to placing some more descriptive terms into MoQ, it may
>>>> >>  also serve to better encompass our place in such a thing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  Regards,
>>>> >>  Mark
>>>> >>
>>>
>>> >  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
>