Hi Jonathan and Squad
You wrote:
> Magnus, are you sure you read the same Lila that I did? How do you
> reconcile
> your interpretation with this (Lila, Chapter 9):-
> "The negative esthetic quality of the hot stove in the earlier example
> was now given some added meaning by a static-Dynamic division of
> Quality. When a person who sits on the stove first discovers his
> low-Quality situation, the front edge of his experience is Dynamic."
Quite sure. The front-edge of every quality event is Dynamic, also
intellectual QEs.
Again, I think the source of our disagreement is that you don't
think anything actually happened before it is registered and
intellectualized.
Things happen anyway!
> Like the division between horse and "horseness"? If they are both "just
> as real", is the division also real?
Such divisions are metaphysical assumptions, like the MoQ. The MoQ puts
them in the compartment intellectual patterns so they are just as real
as the intellectual pattern "horseness", yes.
> Now let me see Magnus. To put it in the terms you use in your previous
> paragraph, we have an "intellectualized representation" of our energetic
> conversation, which "mustn't be confused with the pattern it
> represents".
> Well I am indeed confused. Magnus, your logic is impeccable. But IMO you
> have stumbled upon an absurdity resulting from the underlying
> metaphysical assumptions. I believe that this springs from regarding
> Intellect as a LEVEL.
> Several people previously argued the point that thoughts are not
> necessarily IntPoV, and would say:-
> Thoughts about molecules are InPoV
No, they're IntPoVs.
> Thoughts about organisms are BioPoV
No, they're IntPoVs.
> Thoughts about society are SocPoV
No, they're IntPoVs.
> Thoughts about ???? are IntPoV
You guessed right, thoughts about intellect are also IntPoVs.
And there's nothing absurd about it at all, intellectual
patterns are recursive and can represent any kind of pattern,
including themselves.
> Magnus and other Platonists might have a problem separating between the
> thought patterns and the patterns they represent, but I think we ALL
> have problems with that 4th level. A more graphic representation of this
> problem is my example of a TV camera filming the screen on which it
> displays its image.
Inorganic patterns are not recursive, that's the difference between
a TV screen displaying itself and an IntPoV representing itself.
> I'll let MAGNUS have the last word on IntPoV:-
> [snip]
> > Yeah, and I can regard any intellectual pattern as any kind of
> >pattern because they're all dependent on lower levels.
> [snip]
>
> So Magnus agrees that there is nothing to distinguish IntPoV from any of
> the others. Remember what RMP said about things which can't be
> distinguished? ;-)
Pardon, I should rephrase that:
I can regard anything that are primarily intellectual patterns as
any kind of pattern because they're all dependent on lower levels.
What I meant was that I can show the dependency of any
intellectual pattern all the way down to the inorganic level. Take
away any of those, and the intellectual pattern will vanish with it.
Begin with the IntPoVs of the novel Lila.
Social: Take away the language (English) and the IntPoVs are gone.
Biological: Take away your sense (close your eyes) and the IntPoVs are gone.
Inorganic: Take away the book and the IntPoVs are gone.
> > About the hierarchical chocolate stuff from sci.phil.meta, I can see
> > that you have a scientific reductionist approach [snip]
> > Everything *is* ultimately composed of inorganic patterns. But
> > it makes no sense describing the taste of chocolate in terms
> > of molecule percentages or the plot of Lila in terms of dark spots
> > on the pages of a book.
>
> You missed my point. It makes perfect "sense" in terms of logic. It
> doesn't always make sense in terms of utility. Lila represented as dark
> spots on paper is of possible utility to the typesetter. It isn't much
> use for discussing the novel with your mother-in-law.
I doubt the typesetter utilizes the *plot* of Lila in terms of dark
spots. He might be interested in print quality, the inorganic
patterns of the book, not the intellectual pattern. A 2 year old
child might be interested in the taste of the book, and a 9 year
old might be interested to learn the language of the book. My
primary concern is the plot if you wondered.
> >> Organize THEMSELVES? Why the extra word Magnus? ...
>
> Magnus, you still didn't answer my question. What sort of metaphysics
> needs to make a distinction between WHO organizes and WHOM is organized?
It's closely related to the morality aspect of the levels. Higher level
patterns are more moral simply because the *can* organize and control
lower level patterns. Morality = Reality.
> > The distinction is necessary to point out that each level is only
> >involved in
> > quality events of its own level. The atoms involved in the hot stove
> >example
> > are not concerned with the biological discomfort, the are acting
> >according
> > to their morality, what's good for them, the forces of nature.
> >
>
> Where's the predictive power in that?
The predictive power comes when we realize that we *can't* predict
the behavior of a person on a hot stove in terms of the forces of
nature. We have to regard biological QEs, not just inorganic.
> All you are saying is that patterns follow their own nature.
AND, what kinds of patterns there are.
> That is so true that it is a tautology.
So why did we drag SOM all the way to the 20:th century?
> JONATHAN
> >> ...I started with Pirsig's 4 levels stacked along ONE-dimension, and
> I
> >> have now moved Intellect along a SECOND sideways dimension.
>
> > I guess it's a step forward, you have at least realized that
> >intellectual patterns are different from the rest.
>
> I have always claimed this Magnus. 3+1! That's why I don't like it as
> just another level.
I think each level is as different from the next as you think the
intellectual differs from the rest.
> Let's drop the "intellect" word for a second. The 5 senses exclude
> imagination, inspiration and similar. That's the whole problem with SOM.
> It dismisses these attributes as "subjective" while happily capitalizing
> on their products.
That's one of the problems with SOM, there are several more.
> ...
> > I never claimed to be modest but since you ask, I meant "you" as in
> > me, you, anyone.
> Point taken. I used to be modest, but I'm perfect now:-)
Yeah I know, it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it. :)
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 - 16:02:43 BST