-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]Namens André
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 juli 2002 15:19
Aan: moq_discuss@moq.org
Onderwerp: RE: Half=baked puzzle Was: MD Consciousness
--- "G. Peeters" <gjpeeters@wish.nl> wrote: >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I agree.. configurationphilosofie..
> >
> > Intellect is a configuration of the social
> > The social is a configuration of the biological
> > and the biological is a configuration of the
> > anorganic
> >
> > the anorganic is a configuration of [ ... ] (fill
> > in the blank)
> >
>
> I don't think so. I think intellect goes directly to
> the Tao. Why? Because I feel "the hierarchy" is
> chosen
> for its alledged usefulness in discussion ... not
> because it's really there.
>
> André
>
> --
> Hi André
>
> I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to
> tell me..
> You say:
>
> >I think intellect goes directly to
> the Tao.
>
> Do you mean that all that is intellect (thoughts
> etc..) is Tao
> or that its direction is towards Tao..
> If you mean the first than I cannot agree because
> intellect is a static
> pattern while Tao is - I think - Dynamic Quality.
> If you mean the second than I am not sure because
> static patterns started
> out as a product of Dynamic Quality. Being Dynamic
> Quality ONCE.. not anny
> more. So I don't think that anny static pattern -
> including intellectuel
> patterns - are Tao.
> I see intellect as another tool to grasp the world
> around you.. Worlds
> latest add-on
> That I see intellect as a configuration of the
> social is just because it
> fits so nicely.. Extrapolation (i'm not sure if it
> is the right englisch
> word for it) of the other levels..doing the same
> trick to other data..
>
> and than you say:
> >Why? Because I feel "the hierarchy" is chosen
> >for its alledged usefulness in discussion ... not
> >because it's really there.
>
> Do you mean: The hierarchy is a static intellectual
> pattern.. a model of the
> world.. And you say it's not really there..in that
> case I'm not sure what's
> there and what's not there. If this hierarchy
> doesn't exist, concluding in
> MoQ-terms that the MoQ is not as right as I thought
> .. then the whole MoQ
> falls apart... can therefore be labeled as crap!!
The MoQ levels are useful. Newton's laws of motion are
useful. Both made arbitrary assumptions. MoQ chose to
invent the levels. Newton chose to invent absolute
time. There's nothing crap about working with
assumptions. However, using beauty as a guide, for me
zero levels is more beautiful than four levels (or
however many there are).
But if MoQ is founded on the levels, then it is
possibly crap. If a new level is found ... then it is
crap. If two levels are unified (like when the
electric field and magnetic field where discovered to
be one and the same electromagnetic field) then it is
crap.
The real test of a scientific theory is
falsifiability. How can MoQ be proved wrong? MoQ says
there are levels. I say there is Tao/Quality which
becomes real ... someone looks at it and finds four
levels useful.
André
Ahh... I see what you mean now..
The best theorie is no theorie
'The pointing finger is not the moon' thing...
Thanx..
Gert-Jan Peeters
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST