Hi Magnus,
hope you let me jump in....
Magnus (to Jonathan):
> What it boils down to is our different interpretations of the MoQ. You
equals
> quality to meaning which, I think, puts the first division of the MoQ
between the
> social and intellectual levels. I, on the other hand, think that meaning
comes
> from the social pattern we call 'language' and it's this language that is
needed
> to read the intellectual patterns in the underlying media (or inorganic
pattern).
Well, I've been impressed by your essay
http://www.moq.org/forum/magnus.html, and even if you can't convince me at
all, I admit I find it difficult to find out "bugs" in your reasoning. Just,
about language, you write:
===============================
« The language in the robot society was their communication protocol. Each
robot, each organ, in a society needs to know the language used within the
society. At least to the extent that it can contribute to the society in the
way it's supposed to.
« What is needed to form a society is organs with an ability to interact and
tell each other what it wants other organs to do. Social patterns are
founded on symbiosis between organs. Social patterns are better, more moral,
than the organs used to sustain it, because it's more dynamic. It is, as I
said above, not dependent on any specific organ to do the job, any organ
with the same language and functionality will do just fine.»
.... and....
« Ultimately, all languages are understood by organs in a society. A society
is formed by two or more organs with a common language. Intellectual
patterns can then use this language for support»
===============================
There is a point that is IMO unclear, and I hope you will help me. You
describe Society as a cooperation of organs sharing the same language. That
is like to say (IMHO) that language is not merely a "product" of Society,
rather it is (one of) its basilar condition: no language, no Society
(actually, you can eliminate and replace organs, but not language). At the
same time, you also state that language is needed to support meaning, and
that meaning is a synonymous of Intellectual pattern of value. So, no
language, no Intellectual patterns.
So, according to your interpretation, is language a basilar pattern for
society, for intellect or both? And if your answer is "both", what is the
difference between a social pattern of value and an intellectual pattern of
value?
Ciao,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:45 BST