HI Bo,
A quick reply. I have printed your response to me and I will read & re-read
it this week, and Platt's response, so that I can hopefully respond with
time and thought. Meanwhile, It's odd that some of the messages that I sent
have not yet been posted, one of them is my aug 16th response to Scott sent
at my end at 7:42 pm. which is the subject to these remarks that you
comment on in your post of aug 20th that I am replying to now:
>
> > [Gary]When I was replying to Scott I gave an analysis of how a book can
be
> > examined using MOQ. Again, I use terms such as private/public,
> > internal/external, mind/matter. How would you do the same analysis of
> > how a book is created and then used using your model of MOQ? If you
> > could do this without reference to the terms internal/external ,
> > public/private, mind/matter I would drop my language and use yours!
>
>[Bo] I would - as an opening - say the now I am in intellect-mode (a kind
of
> Husserlian "bracketing" of reality) and go on about mind/matter,
> internal/external, private/public ...etc. to my heart's delight.
>
> >[Gary] When you do such a process MOQ analysis things get awfully
complicated
> > and messy! That is because we are engaging in taking a dynamic living
> > non-linear process and rendering it into a static dead linear
> > description. Please, please take the time to describe a book as I did
> > in my august 16th 7:42 pm post.
>
> Bo]Well, if you see it as messy it can't be helped, I see it as the
greatest
> liberation that has come my way, I was as terrorized by rationality's
ghost as
> Phaedrus once.
>
> > [Gary]ust work on that and send it. I
> > believe it will be extremely important to you and to me. It could
> > help me to understand your position. If you can do it with out
> > mind/matter, Internal/External, public/private terms then you will
> > truly enlightened me!!!
>
> I will when you direct me at it, found no book review in the said post.
But I
> really think all you need to understand my position is in this message.
>
> Bo
Gary: Here is my book description that I asked you to ponder and reply to in
kind:
"What is a book? Answer: it is a object which
exists on all levels. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. It is made of atoms hence 1st
level. It is made of wood pulp turned into paper hence 2nd level stuff.
[whether this is completely accurate is not really relevant to the real
issues of 3rd & 4th level descriptions.] The book is printed with ink [the
ink is either organic chemicals or inorganic chemicals] that is formed into
patterns of symbols. These patterns of symbols have been determined by
society, hence 3rd level. The symbols are an alphabet, lets call this the
English alphabet. The English alphabet system is a 3rd level product. The
letters of the alphabet are arranged into words. Those word patterns are
again 3rd level. The shape of the letters and the way they are arranged are
a physical arrangement of the ink [which is either a 1st level chemical or a
2nd level chemical.] The symbols, the words have meaning. This meaning can
only be experienced by something reading the book. The process of reading
when it is done by a human being starts off as inorganic to organic
processes [photons hitting the ink and then hitting the eye 1st level
events, the photons trigger the biology of the body to process that sense
data this is all 2nd level events.] Eventually there is the experience of
understanding the meaning of the symbols, the words. This experience is a
4th level process and event. The understanding of the meaning had been
taught to the human, that process of teaching how to read English is a 3rd
level process. The process of learning is a internal 4th level process
within the individual human.
All of the above is obvious stuff. If you call the 4th level the mind or
something else, you would have to give the same answer I just did in
describing what a book is. "
The idea behind the above exercise is to demonstrate how I am thinking about
when I use MOQ to follow the process. In doing so I end up with
internal/external, public/private, and mind/matter language. Which I
believe is appropriately used in understand the process of the 4 levels and
how they operate in the real world.
Hence, my point at using such terminology.
I will study what you have written to me and to Squonk. I will try and
respond this weekend.
I really want to bring us toward clarity and mutual understanding if not
agreement,
Gary
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST