Hi Magnus and Squad
Before I get stuck into this reply I should re-iterate that this whole L5 idea is
exploratory. Call it a thought experiment or whatever. One thing I don't want to do
is produce bad feelings or resentment.
>From Magnus
> > Umm... In which case Intellect is prior to the levels on which it is dependent.
>
> Not quite, since the intellect which is prior to the levels is not a part of the
> levels' universe.
So which universe is this intellect part of which is prior to the levels and if, as
you say, a universe is ALL of reality then how can it not be part of the
universe/reality where it is prior to these levels. If it is not part of that reality
how does it obtain knowledge of another reality?
> > That's stretching things a bit too far. If we follow this path we end up in the nuage
> > domain and the MoQ becomes no better than astrology or palm-reading.
>
> Nuage huh? That's a first, I usually consider my view of the MoQ extremely
> strict and classical. Aren't you the fuzziness advocate on the LS?
I didn't know there was a strict or classical MoQ. There's the start of the
MoQ as outlined in Lila (less than 1% according to P.) but apart from that
there's very little else outside of the LS.
> > Why this insistence on the sanctity of 4 levels.
>
> Because they are enough! They represent the most general way to describe
> describable things. You mentioned simplicity and that's exactly what they are.
>
> > It sounds to me like Intellect
> > defending it's territory. The MoQ is not (IMO) a stagnant metaphysics. It may be
> > part of the intellectual level, but that level is only static from a certain point of view
> > - it is not stagnant.
>
> That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as complete and general as we can.
> A metaphysics can be totally inductive, only describing things that exists and
> has happened, not generalizing or trying to predict anything. But I couldn't
> care less about such a description of reality.
Inductivism is where you predict the future for ALL cases based on past
experience and knowledge. It doesn't work well enough to found an entire metaphysics
upon and any system based on it falls over on the appearance of a single counter-example.
I've not suggested this as a basis for the MoQ so I'm not sure why you've mentioned it.
However as you have, saying "because they are enough" is pure inductivism. You are
using current, inadequate and incomplete knowledge to predict, for all time,
that the 4 levels of the MoQ are sufficient to explain everything. This is
dogmatism of the worst sort. I agree that we should try and make the MoQ as
complete as possible but this doesn't mean ignoring a possible next level or
fudging an explanation because we don't like a possible outcome. I can't see that
this will damage the MoQ or cause it to change into some other metaphysics. A
metaphysics can and should grow as it produces greater understanding. The
MoQ is not a stagnant body of thought. What we have so far is a tiny portion of
the whole MOQ. Why are you trying to restrict it.
> > The knowledge that we currently possess is insufficient to say
> > with any certainty that the future development of the universe will be explained by
> > ANY current metaphysics, let alone the MoQ.
> > By definition, the universe will always be the universe - this doesn't mean it is the
> > only universe or the only possible universe.
> > The MoQ currently sees reality as contained by 4 levels of PoV's. To say that this
> > will always be so is dogmatism - something I don't accept.
>
> I'm not actually saying that, I'm just saying that I don't think computer viruses
> are patterns of a higher level and I'm using "The physical order of the universe is
> also the moral order of the universe" as the main argument.
I can accept that computer viruses may not be part of a higher level -
remember I said this thread was exploratory - but the physical order of the
universe also being the moral order of the universe does not preclude this in
any way that I can see. If a computer virus is formed by L5 PoV's then, from it's point of
view (and the MoQ) it is more moral than IntPoV's on down, but less moral
that DQ.
> > As far as I'm aware, what we term the inorganic level is the level which consist of
> > non-living stuff.
>
> I don't, mainly because I think the term "alive" as it is mostly used is
> ambiguous. It usually results in the same set of patterns though.
So for all intents and purposes, there is no difference. There are varying
degrees of aliveness I admit. An organic virus is only barely 'alive' in the organic
sense. This is also the case with a computer virus at a possible Level 5.
>
> > Particles, molecules, rocks, water, planets galaxies etc. Inorganic
> > patterns of value. A floppy disk is built from inorganic material.
>
> So is everything.
Everything covered by the term Object. There is a different relationship between
patterns of value of more advanced forms.
> > Now all of a
> > sudden we have parallel inorganic levels, parallel organic levels etc.
>
> Hence the meta prefix in metaphysics. One metaphysics, several physics.
> One class, several objects. One grammar, several languages. I'm
> discussing the metaphysics, not the physics.
As a metaphysics is a philosophical investigation of the nature, constitution and
structure of reality if you fail to take account of the physics - including it's
shortcomings and inadequacies - when discussing the metaphysics then the two
quickly come to bear no relationship to each other. They are too tightly linked for
either to ignore the other.
> > This is
> > starting to sound like the Ptolemaic explanations for why Mars goes backwards in
> > its path around the earth. The MoQ is supposed to make reality simpler to
> > understand.
>
> An inductive metaphysics is very simple to understand, that doesn't make
> it valuable.
I agree. I've never mentioned anything of the sort and would not do so. A metaphysics
based on induction would have little value for me.
> First try to understand the multi-dimensional view of the
> levels, then criticize it.
You mean your view. When you present a consistent and workable multi-dimensional
view, supported by reason, and which can be experienced then I will. In the meantime
I'll continue to test the MoQ and see where that inquiry leads. My view may be
different to yours but that doesn't mean that you are right and I am wrong. It is
most likely that neither of us is completely correct. Hence the thought experiment
to discover where the inconsistencies and mistakes lie.
> > I'm on dodgy ground here, but if SO thinking is Q-Intellect then how can
> > Q-Intellect fail to be aware of itself and the lower levels. Perhaps Bo
> > could help here.
>
> I accept the SOTAQI idea so far as to acknowledge that SO thinking values
> the same things as intellectual patterns. That doesn't mean that SO thinking
> is aware of that fact, it thinks it is objective.
Sorry. That still isn't very clear. Does this mean that Q-Intellect values
objectivity?
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:33 BST