Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:14:15 +0100
Hi Bo and Hugo
Hugo Fjelsted Alroe wrote:
>
> As I have said before, I believe the proper definition or characterization
> of the intellectual level is by its self-reflective nature, and I have
> shown how all the four levels can be seen as levels of representation or
> reflection. The inorganic is the pre-representational level, in Peircean
> terms sporting only monadic (quality) and dyadic relations, but not the
> triadic relations of representation. The biological level (which is not
> necessarily *bio*logical) is characterized by the autonomity of entities
> representing their world, and the social level is characterized by the
> mutuality of autonomous entities representing each other. The intellectual
> level is characterized by autonomous entities representing them selves.
> Niels Bohr liked to give the example (from a Danish philosopher called Poul
> Moeller) of a student sitting at the table, thinking of himself sitting at
> the table, thinking of himself sitting at the table, and so on ad infinitum.
The way I see it, the only level doing any representation at all is the
intellectual. On the other hand, that is all it does. The moment
something is represented, it is an intellectual representation. Of
course, this intellectual representation is dependent on inorganic SPoV,
so ideally, a representation is an isomorphism between the represented
inorganic SPoV and the re-presenting SPoV, which in turn confuses things
as to which SPoV is representing which.
But that was not was I intended to say. To say that SOM is the
intellectual level of MoQ raises the question, what do you mean
with SOM? I said the other day that it's easy to mix up the
law of gravity with gravity and I think it's equally easy to
mix up the intellectual idea of SOM and the actual metaphysics
of SOM.
Last week, I found yet another way to look at your SAIOM idea.
What SOM values is the same as the intellectual value of MoQ
values. I'll drag up the old example of Phaedrus in the
chemistry lab. The scientific method (SOM) urged him to formulate
new hypotheses as experiments were tested. There was no way of
knowing which hypotheses should be tested, but there was also
impossible to test all. What happens here is that SOM uses the
big Q to choose. SOM doesn't recognize this, but it does it
anyway. Until recently, it's been possible for SOM to close its
eyes to this valuing process constantly used. But it'll soon be
plain for everyone to see, thanks to QM.
In this respect, the invisible moral of SOM is the same as
the visible moral of the intellectual level of MoQ, I accept
the SAIOM idea.
Magnus
-- "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good" N. Peart - Rush-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST