Re: MF Intellectual definitions

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Jun 12 2000 - 20:47:33 BST


Marco and group.
On 7 Jun you wrote:

> I enter this monthly discussion with a certain trepidation. Bo defied
> me for a new chess contest, but this time he lets me the first move,
> reserving for him the pleasure to attack me later:

It sounds like a Kasparov vs Deep Blue match is in progress (who
is who?), but I don't find any great differences in our views except
about my SOL idea - which you formulated so well that I am
convinced that you (at least) understand it, and that's something.
You have heard about leading horses to the water....etc :-)

In your definitions build-up (worth an Imanuel Kant) you reached
this stage:

> Part A - (My) Definition of level
 
> We must always remember that when we refer to a "level", this is
> primarily a level of (human) experience. We can experience everything
> as part of every level. Bo explained it very well last 19 January
> talking about the Leonardo's Monna Lisa: it can be seen Inorganic,
> Biological, Social or Intellectual depending on the "Focus" of the
> observer. This leads me to consider every "thing" (even myself) an
> individual, that is an infinite mix of patterns of every level.

I am glad that the Mona Lisa example went home so well, but the
"human experience" grates my Q-nerves a bit. You sort of made it
good by the "solipsism" remark further down, yet the subject/object
(human/non-human) quandary is resolved already in ZaMM. I
goofed in my latest clash with Struan Hellier over at the MD when I
said that the MOQ could be called a Metaphysics of Subjectivity.
Struan - never having accepted the initial ZaMM claim - swooped
down on this from his som-perch and finally got his revenge by
ceremonially declaring himself in total agreement. I could only grit
my teeth but it was too late. He doesn't give at the doors - not to
this beggar :-).

See, young P was challenged by his teacher colleagues to decide
where his Quality belonged: to the subjective or the objective
realm, and at that stage not having realized the enormity of his own
claim (being solidly inside the SOM) took up the challenge. He
evaluated the objective horn as not his place which left him with the
subjective (idealist) one, but it leads to the dreaded solipsism - the
dizzying perspective that all is in our minds. He threw sand in the
bull's eyes and after a while came up with the preposterous claim
that Qualiy is OUTSIDE the subject/object scope.

If one accepts this - no more subjectivity or objectivity as
fundamentals. However if not and one remains in som-world the Q-
idea looks like pure subjectivity - it only got these two alternatives!
There is this quantum leap between the two metaphysics: once
you are over at the Q-side it's natural, from SOM's side it's
impossible.

Conclusion: I see no particular purpose in saying that the levels are
of human experience. Even to counter it by asking what is not
human only brings one deeper into the som-mire. 'Human' in
moqian at most indicates Q-intellect, while on the social, biological
and inorganic plane the experience is common to all existence.
Nota Bene: Unless the impossible human/subjective/mind-intellect
strikes again? As long as this is left suspended the MOQ will be
plagued with it, that is my grim forecast.

All right, you sensed this and added the solipsism remark and that
about the "Quality Event" which is in accordance with both ZaMM
and the SODAV paper, but nothing that the book LILA particularly
concentrates on.

Thanks for doing such a thorough job Marco.
 
Bo

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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST