Hi Horse and Squad
You wrote:
> I really don't have the faintest idea what you mean by a one
> dimensional map
> as no such thing exists, as far as I'm aware, but I think
> this ties in with your
> (completely incorrect) belief that my view of the MoQ is
> one-dimensional, as
> you have stated in a previous post. Whilst I don't for a
> moment expect you,
> or anyone else, to agree with me you seem to have failed to
> understand
> my view and as a consequence you are misrepresenting me
> completely. If
> this were not the case you would see that my view is not
> one-dimensional
> but multi-dimensional. We seem to have divergent views of the
> MoQ neither
> of which is necessarily 'right' or 'wrong', merely different.
Sorry about the misrepresenting, I have to stop doing that.
One of these days I'll get it right.
What I mean with the one-dimensional map is that some people
seems to see the four levels as a line divided into four
sections. At some time on prehistoric earth, some inorganic
pattern evolved into a biological pattern and completely left
the inorganic section. That is not my view of the levels.
> In one sense the MoQ _IS_ secondary - to Quality! This is why
> in the past I have
> warned about distinguishing between the MoQ and Quality. To
> reiterate, the MoQ
> is PART of Quality. The way it gets talked about here
> sometimes, anyone would
> think that the MoQ and Quality are the same thing
Yes, it's the same difference as gravity vs. the law of gravity.
> A map is a way of recording information in order to share
> knowledge. It records
> where you've been and allows others to use this information
> as a guide. The
> greater part of the MoQ has yet to be discovered. In this
> sense I agree with you
> that the MoQ itself is not strictly a map. The MoQ is, more
> strictly, Intellectual
> patterns of value, but these PoV's need to be conveyed from
> person to person, as
> Pirsig did with Lila to get the process started. The means of
> information
> transmission - language, writing etc. - creates public access
> to the IntPoV's of
> the MoQ.
I agree completely, the beauty of the MoQ is that all you said
above is deductible from it.
> Perhaps the different types of experience should be stressed
> here. A rock or a
> floppy disk does not 'experience' its world in the same way
> that a human being
> does (I would presume). But I don't think it is unreasonable
> to say, from a
> particular viewpoint, that a rock can experience its world -
> maybe 'interact with'
> would be a better phrase.
Makes me think of Bo's sequence:
INTERACTION - SENSATION - EMOTION - REASON.
> I'm not too sure about this. It's a moot point I suppose but
> in order to have the
> same intellectual experience the initial starting point and
> subsequent experiences
> would have to be identical. If this were the case then for
> intellectual experiences
> to be the same there would be no difference in value. In
> other words they would be
> indistiguishable from each other which they don't appear to be.
True in our human dynamic world. But take a look at the ones
and zeros in the static world of a computer. The processor values
just these two patterns and every zero is identical with every
other zero.
> > All other levels are unable to reference itself or make
> exact copies, (the
> > physical equivalent would be Heisenberg's uncertainty
> principle), so we can't
> > have identical experiences of such patterns.
>
> Which is probably a good thing as otherwise DQ might have a hard time.
Yeah, and infinite recursion at the inorganic level would be
quite nasty.
Magnus
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST