From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 09:03:12 BST
Sam ..and Scott (I swear that this was written before yours of 26
July)
First, thanks Sam for your input regarding terrorism and the
terrorists. I agree deeply.
Then on 25 July you wrote:
> In my conversations about the intellectual level etc, my position has
> largely been driven by a failure to understand how intellectual
> patterns, as 'properly' understood in the MoQ, are able to respond to
> Quality (DQ).
Have you too been talking about intellect? With whom?
> My eudaimonic paper was largely an attempt to answer
> that question to my own satisfaction. However, it occurs to me that
> other people might be able to answer the question more cogently, so I
> thought I'd invite answers.
Yes, I had great hopes for your eudaimonic idea, but it did not go
to the needed length.
> A worked example would doubtless help. Why don't we take a
> mathematical equation (where it's indisputable that we have an
> intellectual pattern).
> How does the intellectual pattern 'E=MC²' respond to DQ? How did
> 'E=MC²' win out over, say, 'E=MC³'? Where were the preferences
> displayed, and how were they displayed? How does the value of one over
> the other express itself?
I skip about the lower levels because our notion of intellect
determines our view of those. You too seem to harbour the
standard view of intellect as the realm of ideas with mathematical
equations as its epitome .
That I disagree with this is no news, IMO a better example of an
intellectual pattern is your own question: "How does the
intellectual pattern 'E=MC²' respond to DQ? ...etc.
Here we recognize intellect's: How does things (objectively seen)
work? What mechanisms are at work when object A interacts with
B ...etc. something the social level (f.ex.) isn't interested in as no
mechanisms are needed over there. Its existence is spiritual,
magical perhaps (I hope it conveys the meaning).
> If we say one is more true than the other, how is truth expressed in
> terms of Quality or value? (To say simply 'truth is a higher quality
> pattern' is circular and doesn't answer my question)
The E=MC2 equation in itself, out of any context is like 2+2=4 a
logic arrangement and part of language's structure. But of course
what led up to it is intellect (as science) Knowledge of light's
velocity, of mass as energy .
> How is the higher quality of one intellectual pattern over another
> static latched? What causes the latching? Or, how should the latching
> be understood? What is being latched on to where?
Regarding the two E=MC sentences respective quality I guess
the part about the speed of light being squared instead of "cubed"
(is that what you say?) showed up in Einstein's calculations and
thus was a logical fall-out. A pre-intellect cave-dweller would
surely have seen the illogic if two and two pebbles ended up as
five pebbles.
Because your question is S/O-patterned, science gives the
answers how higher (I like "more complex") patterns grows and
latches. Biology about biological evolution, sociology about social
evolution. When it comes to intellect itself only the SOL view of it
works. Intellect does not see itself as any Q-evolutionary level,
but as a subject that delivers answers about an objective world,
only from the MOQ this picture is seen.
How things objectively works is S/O-intellect's business and has
no interest for a non-S/O metaphysics. The MOQ just postulates
that a Q-development is at work at all levels - intellect included.
> I'll keep giving my answers to this in my discussion with Paul, but I
> thought other people should have an opportunity for a 'clean' go at
> answering the question.
I look forward to comparing notes.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 27 2005 - 09:09:06 BST