Re: LS is intellect its own level?

From: B. Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Date: Fri Sep 17 1999 - 19:56:14 BST


Dear LilaSquad.

DENIS POISSON started his impressive post of 14 September by
writing:

> One recurring problem we seem to see in those discussions is the nature
> of the levels. I believe many people (as Glenn's post indicates) still
> see them as ontological "things", entities in their own right.
> This is not so.
> The levels are intellectual PoVs......snip

I agree about the problem of seeing the static levels the way that
Glenn does: Q-Biology as composed of matter atoms in SOM's objective
sense. But to remedy this Denis throws the baby out with the water:
"The levels are intellectual PoVs" he declares and I get the feeling
that they become SOM's subjects. In the mind!!!?

The static levels are neither things nor intellect (in the mind).
This is sorted out at a much earlier stage when P of LILA
demonstrates that existence is VALUE. One may be sceptical to his
proofs, but if you accept them you have entered the Q universe
and the nature of the levels are no bones of contention.

Remember the figure of gestalt psychology that can be seen as
either a black vase or two white faces. One can alternate between the
two but it's impossible to see both simultaneously. The talk
about Q-Intellect as a level where the rest of the Q-levels reside,
in addition to itself - and the SOM for good measure -
is to give the impression that one hovers at a meta-metaphysical
stage where the two are viewed "objectively", but it's an illusion.

This much said, the rest of Denis post is excellent - even if he
doesn't buy my SOM as Q-Intellect idea. Or does he?
 
> The reason I cannot think of SOM as being equal to the Q-Intellect is
> that it is already too perfect, too developped to be a good candidate
> for the post. So I've got to find a good (even if it's a little loosely
> defined) one. Language seems to be such a candidate for many people.
> It's supposed to be different from society, but is it ? Bees
> communicate, wolves do too, but that's not language they're using. So
> what is language ? I'll give you a linguist definition.

Yes SOM is well developed, but I can't see that as an objection, to
the contrary: Its division dominates our outlook.

Denis introduces language as the candidate for Q- Intellect, and
his linguist lecture is good. Splendid! Human - symbolic - language
as different from other means of communication; the semantic vs
phonetic..etc. Perfect! My own "abstraction" that I wrote about to
Diana has much in common with it, and I wonder if Denis knows Charles
Peirce's Semiosis (sign) metaphysics?

But after a while he rejects his candidate:

> But then, language isn't the same as the Intellectual level. It would be
> like saying that DNA *is* the Biological level. It isn't. DNA is a
> molecule. Combined with RNA and other molecules, and contained within a
> cell it is able to replicate itself and evolve, it's the biological
> information carrier (pattern-carrier if you want), but it's not
> Q-Biology.

and reintroduces it in another role

> OK, let's say that language is the machine code of the Q-Intellect. It
> conveys information (static intellectual value), has the possibility to
> replicate itself, and to evolve in response to Dynamic Quality.
 
Yes, this is important. The"machine code" metaphor as P used it
was the isthmus between soft- and hardware in a computer, so the way
we may see language is as an isthmus between Society and Intellect.
(DNA as the one between Inorganic and Organic)

It was the social tool that "took off on a purpose of its own" and
grew through the millennia and - at the early Greek thinkers time
took the final step to free itself from its parent level. Language
gives the impression of a mind realm where abstract concepts
can be juggled by the semantic rules and this abstract realm
contrasted with the concrete realm has created the Subject-Object
metaphysics.

Denis presents HIS vision Q-Intellect:

> So what is the Q-Intellect ? Try this : it is the greater patterns in
> which static intellectual patterns organize themselves. Hierarchies,
> relations, similarities, opposites, functions. A metaphysics. We define
> the ontology (Ideas and Appearances, Substance and Forms, four classes
> of Static Patterns of Value, Spirits and Elements, Yin and Yang), then
> the relationships between things.

and is somehow back into his - um - mindlike intellect where all
these patterns organize themselves. Even SOM (See below) and the
Q-levels.

Yet, I find Denis' so interesting that I can't but think he is on the
brink of ......something (I almost wrote "understanding" :-)). "

He examines SOM:

> What is SOM ? A metaphysics with great Dynamic potential. It created
> guidelines to access high-Quality intellectual patterns, defining
> Quality as Good Intellectual patterns : Truth....

Yes, yes, the Q-idea springs from SOM; it is DQ's attempt to free
itself from it's own latest static latch. But once evolution - even
from a new and unsafe position - has seen existence from on
high SOM is no longer ALL OF IT. Some people speaks so lightly about
metaphysics as if something we chose and picks from, but it's not so.

Denis understands that too:

> The real metaphysics of the Sophists is now lost to us, except for its
> central tenet : Arete. Its greatest tool, rhetoric (its replicative
> system, we could say) lost its battle with dialectics. Perhaps its
> ontology wasn't good enough, didn't include enough of the world. Perhaps
> it was too centered on the social level and lost because SOM had a
> better grip upon the intellectual level. Who knows ?

Once the MOQ - allegedly - is our metaphysics there cant be another
all embracing world view inside it. It can however be seen as the
highest static level of the MOQ. "SOM-as-Intellect" is misleading,
therefore SOLAQI (Subject-Object Logic as Q-Intellect).

Thanks for reading and thanks to Denis, his was one Harley of a post.

Bo

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT