Hello everyone
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
>
> ROG RESPONDS TO DAN, BO, RICHARD, JOVO, RIFF
> MAGNUS, DP, MARCO AND DANILLA ON MEMES,
> LEVELS, SANITY, THE REALITY OF #'s AND COPIES
> AND MAPS, and GAME THEORY (whew)
>
> Hey gang, I have been having difficult keeping up. Sorry, but below
> are some
> quick responses.
Hi Roger
No problem. I'm having difficulty too.
>
> ********
> TO DAN AND EVERYONE ON MEMES:
>
> I am pleased to see you investigating memetic theory. I will just add
> that
> despite my attraction to the theory, I agree with your view that the
> vast
> majority of it is dualistic SOM to the core. This criticism is not as
>
> damning as it sounds though. As we know, most intellectual fields are
>
> dominated by SOM (Bo would probably say they ARE SOM). The key IMO is
> to
> take knowledge and convert it into a more coherent world view using
> the MOQ.
> Lila is loaded with such examples where Phaedrus reaches harmony with
> previous SOM platypi.
>
> **********
Dan:
Well said.
> TO JOVO, MAGNUS and DAN ON MAGNUS' DIMENSIONAL LEVELS:
>
> I agree completely that the dimensional model that Magnus offered is a
> great
> metaphor. It reveals that higher levels arise out of and are
> dependent upon
> the lower levels (this is basic MOQ theory, well documented in Lila,
> but
> frequently forgotten by many). It also shows that the value
> attractors (to
> use complexity/chaos terminology), of the higher levels are not in
> complete
> opposition to the prior level, they are more at a general 90 degree
> angle.
> Some values end up supporting those below, others contradict, but the
> higher
> level goes off in a new degree or dimension of freedom.
>
> BTW, Dan and I worked on a zigzag "fire-escape" model to illustrate
> the
> static levels at one time a few years ago. I think Dan used it in his
> web
> site. Is that model still alive Dan?
Dan:
Yes it is and those who wish may find it here:
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Jaynes.htm
The model can be found by scrolling down to "Morality's force of Value."
>
> ***********
> TO DAN, MARCO, DANILLA, BO AND RICHARD ON LEVELS PERCEIVING AND
> AFFECTING
> EACH OTHER:
>
> I suggest we come to a consensus that anthropomorphizing the levels is
> a
> convenient, but often-times sloppy rhetorical practice. In other
> words, that
> the levels don't have "motives" or "wants" or "perceptions". The
> levels
> refer to patterns of value. Each level emerges out of the lower
> values, but
> the process is so complex that there is little or no direct
> interaction
> between non-adjacent levels. As for adjoining levels, although they
> do
> interact, I agree with Bo that each level "is bound to follow its
> basic
> value." Do any of you substantially disagree?
Dan:
Sounds good to me.
>
> *************
> TO DAN ON SANITY:
> DAN WROTE:
> You've reinforced my point here, Roger. You are making the same
> assumption all "sane" people make in that we don't sit around pissing
> ourselves or letting our cigarettes burn out on our fingers unless we
> are truly mad, then we deserve to be institutionalized (hung up by our
>
> metaphorical thumbs, so to speak).
>
> ROG:
> I would be willing to test this assumption based on the principles of
> the
> MOQ. People that sit frozen in a corner pissing and burning
> themselves
> usually require some type of help. I did not assume institutionalizing
> is the
> only or best cure, but it may be appropriate in some/many cases.
Dan:
But why? It is society that dictates, right? Either that person is on
the brink of some monumental spiritual breakthrough or else they will
die, but do they really want to be drawn back into the "real" world
forcefully? It would seem this is precisely why those on a spiritual
quest must leave society and its rules behind or otherwise be forcefully
detained in an insane asylum or perhaps peacefully placated with drugs.
Reading ZMM it seems Phaedrus' mental breakdown had all the signs of
society considers insanity... his getting lost looking for bunk beds,
his
dreams, his self absorption in his own mind to the point of disregarding
all else and of course his rant at the Chairman and subsequent silence
followed up by pissing himself... yet looking deeper, beyond the
omnipresent static quality patterns of value we are so familiar with
there lies an abyss called Dynamic Quality.
A couple weeks ago you wrote a little ditty about a mystic wannabe and a
fisherman. I enjoyed it very much and it gave me a good chuckle. But
does anyone really want to be a mystic? I don't know anyone who does.
Sounds lonely and scary to me and not really like much fun despite some
who may romanticize the notion. Did Phaedrus choose to sit in the corner
pissing himself? No! But does that automatically mean he needed help?
No! We are all without choice but we continually lie to ourselves and
each other and build a make believe world where there are happy endings
and doctors really heal people and the law is always just.
And also, it seems to me if a man could shake a cigarette out of a pack
and light it up he must not have been all that out there? Hmmm...
>
> ************
> TO DAN ON WIN/WIN (Non zero-sum game theory):
> ROG:
> If you would like actual examples of win/win games, I can provide
> them, but
> the key thing is not that games can be win/win, but that life and
> interactions in life can be win/win. And your example of the song is a
> great
> example of a win/win relationship of both the song writer and the
> listeners
> benefiting from the interaction. Axelrod's point is that people
> mistakenly
> believe that life is ALWAYS zero sum. They are very wrong, but most
> have
> real trouble seeing this. (Probably because much of life IS zero sum)
> They
> generalize and miss a valuable exception to the rule.
Thank you for the wonderful clarification. Often times we find just what
we are looking for.
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
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 - 16:00:54 BST