Hi Marco
> hope you let me jump in....
Please do.
> 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?
I wouldn't say both, because language and society evolves simultaneously. I
would imagine that all societies once started as two organisms living in
symbiosis. This symbiosis would be the simplest form of society and at a first
look, we would probably not call their form of interaction a 'language'. But
metaphysically, I think it is a language, also at this early primitive stage.
> And if your answer is "both", what is the
> difference between a social pattern of value and an intellectual pattern of
> value?
Actually, it doesn't really matter whether I answer both or not. All patterns
of higher levels are dependent on all lower levels. Without inorganic patterns,
there could be no higher level patterns. That doesn't mean that all higher
level patterns are identical.
On the other hand, both the social and intellectual pattern would disappear
of the language disappeared, so in a sense, both are dependent on language.
There is still a clear difference between social and intellectual patterns.
In the case of the Lila Squad, the language is English, the social pattern
is the Lila Squad community and the intellectual patterns are the ideas on
the MoQ site. Both the Lila Squad society and the ideas on the site would
disappear if English suddenly vanished. (Well, not to you since you have an
Italian mirror but that doesn't count. :)
Magnus
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