Todd, Bo and MF.
Todd's post about "descriptions of opposition" hits something
important, and Bo's reply and my new-growing understanding of SOLAQI
are all mixing together to this:
First my understanding of SOLAQI:
SOM-intellect is based on objectivity and a "single" truth that is
it's main "RULE" so MoQ opposes this and can't be contained in that
level.
So MoQ's intellectual level is only SOM-thinking, anything above that
can't fit in there, and this leaves the intellectual level very
simple with clear objectives/limits.
SOM is huge, it's a complete system that's been extremely useful, but
it's stuck in a dimension of Subject/Object and can't go anywhere
further.
Keeping it in a level with MoQ makes a mess of contradictions/opposing ideas.
if I got it right I think I'm going to like SOLAQI...
OK, onto Todds "descriptions of opposition": This reminded me of the
main revelation I got when understanding MoQ: It vaporized my hated
"Binarchies" (Binary Hierachies):
In the SOM world, everything has to fit into a binary state:
Subject/Object, Classic/Romantic and Todd's Love-Hate, Sadness-Joy,
Contempt-Compassion, Anger-Mercy, Attraction-Repulsion etc.
Any conclusion is a series of true/false decisions arriving at a
"leaf" in a "tree".
I'm using the term binary here even though there's often more than
two choices, but the binary spits seem to be the most prominent, and
any higher split can be reduced to a number of binary splits.
A 5th level way of thinking does away with the linear binary decision
process, and realizes that Quality creates the subject and object
that create a opposition/binary division, and that it is undefinable,
and thus there is not necessarily one true/false path to a given
answer, and thus not necessarily one answer either. The fact that
quality governs HOW these splits are made in the first place is also
essential.
5th level reasoning (with SO-Logic as 4th level intellect) will have to:
* Adjust how binary divisions are made all the way up a decision branch to
reach a highest quality conclusion.
* Work up all possible true/false branching if the undefinedness of
Quality might make true and false possible.
* Realise that on of a true/false decision at a given branch might have high
quality locally, but if the end result doesn't have high quality, a "wrong"
local decision might have high quality after all.
What I'm driving at here is that Dynamic Quality can "Create" many
good rules, but their isn't always a way to use these rules linearly
to get to a high Quality result, Quality has to "Create" the entire
route all at once, or at least in an iterative process.
It's as if SOM thinking reduces everything into n little equations
with one unknown, whereas the problem really is an nth degree
equation.
PS: Join me on my hammer-wielding crusade to get rid of the split
between lightning and thunder by calling them lightning and
lightning-noise. (or a more visually neutral name). It's all SOM's
fault! :-)
-tor
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST