Bo, All
We had:
> Erin-[the laws of freedom] in which the ideal was " to be free and independent"
> Jonathan- [the laws of laws]-"That would capture the self-referential
> aspect of intellect."
> Platt-[logical consistency or math and logic]- "The fourth level of
> intellect is based on the inflexible laws of math."
> Marco-[Human Rights] are the set of laws the intellectual patterns have
> invented to keep at bay social patterns.
> 3WD- [the philosopy of laws] - to include "the laws of logic", "the
> laws of freedom", "the laws of truth", "the laws of good" including "the
> laws of levels"
> Wim-[Ethics]-"which underpins human rights and duties"
> Scott-[Reason]-"which in this context I look on as the ability to
> consciously create laws, hence it is about freedom."
> Rog-[rules of logic]
> Horse-[Reason]-"Reason creates order and reason creates the other levels
> as greater ordering."
to which Bo predictably adds:
Bo- the"subject/object divide"..and "what is REASON except the ability
to distinguish between the two?"
Bo
> DQ is supposed to be the all-pervading reality in
> which the static levels have crystallized, but if the DQ/sq is a mere
> intellectual pattern it requires another QUALITY that the DQ/sq is
> just one possible divide of. I spot a somish apparition here.
3WD
Let me try another approach and say that I believe all below is
consistent with the MoQ. You walk out your door on a winter day and you
catch a whiff of smoke and you see it curling out of your chimney. You
experience it dynamically as it swirls about now wispy, now dense, the
smell waxes and wanes. Your wife steps along side you and you turn and
say, "Doesn't that smoke smell good?"
The smoke is at once dynamic (DQ) and a briefly stable pattern of
inorganic values (SQ) which you experience by sight and smell and it is
real, in the way the most commonsense type of realism claims.
Now let us say that we have a new super-duper remote scanning devise
with a high speed real time color monitor attached which can trace all
the little nerve impulses sent from your eyes and nose (and every other
nerve ending in your body) to your brain. Then we could then see a
dynamic flow of briefly stable patterns of inorganic values being sent
to the brain and they are real as above. But they are not the smoke you
saw and smelt but are the direct experience of the dynamic quality of
"smoke" prior to intellectualization. They arrive at the appropriate
place in the brain, are dynamically decoded, (intellectualized) and you
now turn add say the word "smoke". And we see dynamically on the monitor
a briefly stable pattern of inorganic patterns of synapses that in
Norwegian corresponds to "smoke" along with whatever other patterns are
required to trigger your vocal cords and other muscles return along
other paths, your lips move (biological patterns) and your wife hears
"smoke" (the physical inorganic patterns of air moving) All real. But
none of this is the smoke. I'm standing nearby I hear you speak and the
same sequence of events happen but when those values get to my brain it
says HUH? I speak no Norwegian. So what must also have happened is at
the very least in you and your wife's memory is a social pattern of
values that is Norwegian for "smoke." And this is real, but it is not
smoke. But even this is not enough for without all the shared social
(and probably intellectural) values of syntax and grammar of the
Norwegian language I still wouldn't understand. And these values are not
the "smoke" but they are just as real as the smoke in the air. But this
whole process is fallable. I couldn't translate because I didn't have
the appropriate patterns in memory to decode what I heard. Your wife
could have been daydreaming and heard only the word "good" and reponded,
"Ya, I like it when its sunny too."
So when you say,
> but if the DQ/sq is a mere intellectual pattern it requires another QUALITY that the DQ/sq is just one possible divide of. I spot a somish apparition her
I do not say that "smoke" is a mere intellectual pattern but a dynamic
series of events that trigger a whole series of other dynamics events
which AFTER BEING intellectualized are transformed into the concept or
word "smoke." which is dependant upon a wide range of other social and
intellectural values to be understood. The intellectual menu item
"smoke," is not the "smoke" that you experienced. And they are all
equally real, but they are not all equally GOOD. One characteristic of
the intellectual menu item "smoke" that differs from the food "smoke" is
that it has possibility of being wrong, or not quite right. Of not, as
William James says "of leading us to" the experienced "smoke." And that
is why the intellect must alway be somewhat skeptical of itself, but not
so much so a it fails to act.
How that for smoke with no mirrors, now even I'm confused.
3WD
PS: Great post Marco! You make my case for a wide spectrum of
intellectual values or systems of intellectual values better than I do.
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 - 16:01:51 BST