Magnus and MF,
Hi Magnus, thanks for your answer.
MARCO (previous):
> > - Every level is identified by:
> > a. A BASIC VALUE
> > b. A "CLASS" OF STATIC PATTERNS MADE OF THE SAME BASIC VALUE
MAGNUS:
>
> This is a tough one to really grasp. The words "MADE OF"
> are often mistaken to be more in the lines of "COMPOSED OF"
> instead of "THAT REQUIRES".
>
> If you read "COMPOSED OF", you actually see matter as the
> only thing reality is ultimately "MADE OF".
>
> But if we change it to "REQUIRES", we can free ourselves a bit
> from the matter bond and see other connections.
MARCO:
I appreciate your careful words. Actually, there's not a huge difference
between "MADE OF" (in the sense of COMPOSED OF) and "THAT REQUIRES". Let
me explain why I do prefer the *stronger* notation "MADE OF". Let me
clarify that I just want to fight the common vision of matter as rough
material for reality. Actually, it's true that if you ask "What's
biological life MADE OF?" you probably will get the common answer:
"Matter; Carbon, Hydrogen and so on.... ". And they will tell you also
that the DNA code is a REQUIREMENT for life, as it's necessary for atoms
to be organized that way in order to create life.
The revolution is to say that VALUE (encoded into the DNA information
set) is the rough material for life; and it REQUIRES atoms, or matter
if you want, just as supporters of the biological values. Just like the
Pirsig's novel example: the novel is made of intellectual value (encoded
in the social language, I'd add), and it requires matter (in form of
books, videotapes, or whatever else) as inorganic support. But not only
inorganic supports. As said, language is a necessary social pattern; but
also, it needs a market (or another similar social support) to be
shared.
It's not so fuzzy: a football team will change the players, the fans,
the owners, the stadium, the jacket ... but it will be forever the same
football team. What's left? the value. That's why I do prefer to say
that the rough material is value: in this case a social value, while
single players are the necessary requirement in order to support the
value. Likewise, during my life I will substitute all my atoms several
times, but I will be nevertheless me. Or I can change every part of my
motorcycle: engine, color, wheels, lamps... nevertheless it will be my
motorcycle.
MAGNUS:
> For example, the "COMPOSED OF" meaning causes us to think
> that the only way to rise to higher levels is to get bigger. Animals
> are bigger than atoms, societies are bigger than animals, but then
> the strange thing happens and we can't really
> see why the intellectual level is a natural extension of the social.
>
MARCO:
But animals are smaller than planets, and a family of farmers is smaller
than the farm...
MAGNUS:
> Change it back to "REQUIRES" again and we see that the only
> thing we do when we're attaching two entities together to form one
> larger entity is that we have build a society out of two biological
> components. The scale is not of interest!
MARCO:
I agree 100%. It's not a question of scale. The new level arises when a
new kind of value is created. That is: a new way to "encode" DQ into
static patterns. (A new dimension?)
MAGNUS:
> A cell is "MADE OF" a cell core and a cell membrane, neither
> the core nor the membrane would make it on their own. All such
> cooperative things were drawn together by biological value but after
> a while, they can't survive without the other. Biological quality have
> initiated the birth of the social level.
>
> I have said this many times before but it was some time ago
> now. The thing is, I don't see any metaphysical difference at all
> between an animal and a city, or a country. Both are social patterns
> "MADE OF" many parts responsible for different
> duties. Each part - heart, fire brigade, stomach,
> school, liver, hospital etc. - are just smaller biological parts that
> are attached because it's socially more valuable.
>
MARCO:
I think we are diverging here. It seems you are looking at every form of
cooperation as a social interaction. Is the cooperation of electrons and
protons in order to create the atom a q-social pattern? Is the
cooperation of heart and blood a q-social pattern? I just call it
cooperation: a common behavior (like competition, for example)
throughout the four levels.
thanks again
Marco
another important
PS
:-)
even the representation of the levels is important. We have at least
three good pictures:
One is from the SODaV paper, where levels are drawn as 4 boxes.
Another one was suggested in the past, where levels are drawn as 4
concentric circles.
And another one draws levels as "dimensions".
I think there are good aspects in all. The first one explains well the
moral hierarchy, better than any "dimensional" picture. The second one
enforces this point, and shows that every level is contained by the next
one; but also seems to tell us that only the most developed level can
interact with DQ (which is out of the circles). The last "dimensional"
one is the only showing that "entities" (single points in the
dimensional map) are what they are according to four possible
coordinates. It's hard to reduce the MOQ into a single picture.....
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST