Hi Jonathan
> I hope we aren't just arguing for the sake of it;-)
I was hoping you realized we weren't, but I guess I was mistaken.
JONATHAN
> I'm not sure I like that. Does that mean that the molecules that read
> the DNA and translate it into a protein are demonstrating intellect?
> Those molecules are not reading "AUGCUCGGCUUA . . ." the way a
> biochemist would. The different molecules are interacting in their own
> non-intellectual way, and the way WE UNDERSTAND that interaction is the
> intellectual pattern.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that cells are intelligent. If you read
my answer to Marco yesterday, you'll see that the language and the society
evolves simultaneously. This is such a case where the organs of the body
have developed a language without showing intellect.
> MAGNUS <<<
> 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 do indeed equate quality and meaning, but I don't think that
> represents a division between any particular levels. Quality/Meaning
> precedes any division into levels. The 4 levels themselves represent
> Pirsig trying to explain the meaning of the world we experience.
Your 3+1 idea certainly appears to be just that division to me.
> <<<
> 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).
> >>>
>
> Magnus, I say the exact opposite. The primary meaning is there first and
> the language evolves to encode it. I would say that the primary meaning
> is experience itself, and any language dependent expression of that
> experience is somewhat less than the experience itself.
> To paraphrase Lao-Tzu, the meaning that can be expressed in language is
> not the real meaning.
Then he was wrong. Intellectual patterns *can* be described using language.
Mathematics is such a beast.
> JONATHAN
> > But it is WE who compartmentalize the world into separate entities
> that
> > interact and "decode" each other.
> > I hope that I don't have to explain the significance of this in a
> forum
> > devoted to Pirsig.
>
> MAGNUS
> >This also points at our difference of opinion. It is not only 'WE' that
> >'compartmentalize the world'. It is quality events at all levels that
> do.
>
> True, but first WE compartmentalize Quality into distinct quality
> events!!!!!!
We're going in circles here. My argument is just above. If reality is
like you describe it, then quality events just started happening ~10
years ago.
> I think that the MoQ starting point must be a non-compartmentalized
> Quality, and that has to come first. I regard anything else as a
> complete misreading of the MoQ.
The MoQ, being a monism, has Quality as a non-compartmentalized starting
point. But that is the starting point used when talking about the MoQ.
It was not the starting point for our universe at the Big Bang. If
you take the MoQ seriously, it was already at work when the Big Bang
happened.
> I go along with the abstract=intellectual. If you remember my "3+1" idea
> from December 1998
> (http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0049.html) it was
> exactly that.
> The abstraction of intellect from the other 3 levels makes it something
> quite different.
Your 3+1 idea makes the lower 3 levels into an organization chart, that's
not a metaphysics. The levels are not about scale! Each level is orthogonal
to all other levels, i.e. extends in a 90 degree angle to all other.
> Magnus, I looked back at the archive and my criticism stands. I don't
> claim to be an expert quantum mechanic, but I do have some idea about
> what quantum theory entails. I don't want to sound patronizing, but I
> get the impression that you don't. As for the MoQ, I think I understand
> it at least as well as you do.
So, what exactly is your criticism? That you know more than I do? Not much
of an argument methinks. I may not use the most commonly used terms when
writing about quantum mechanics but that's because I'm trying to use the
MoQ plus what I know about QM to break some new ground. That's what
philosophy is to me. Does anyone care to accompany me? Jonathan doesn't
seem to be up to the task.
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