From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 21 2005 - 16:29:28 BST
Mark,
Mark 19-10-05:
Also, step 2 of the loop, 'Open up to DQ' may be the
area of secondary ontological events or intuition.
Scott:
Why not say "is DQ" rather than "Open up to DQ"? Why
isn't intuition DQ? It is undefinable and leaves new
SQ in its wake, no?
Mark 21-10-05:
Hello Scott, Fair question.
I reckon you are correct to identify intuition with
DQ.
The 2sqOE comes close to the cutting edge of intuition
also, maybe it is almost direct unmediated experience,
but not quite? I must be more careful to underline
this differentiation. Thanks Scott.
Scott said:
But I would go further and say that it is not confined
to any particular static repertoire, that it also
creates repertoires, that it is capable of jumping out
of all repertoires.
Mark 19-10-05:
This is interesting.
Scott said:
But I agree with Ian that intellect is more than
cybernetics.
[Side note to Ian: you're right, I misread what you
said. Apologies]
Mark 19-10-05:
Even cybernetic loops are part of the static
repertoire. I'm suggesting that we simply recognise
that the steersman in this process aims for DQ.
Scott:
OK, you are including cybernetic loops into the
static. Which is why I noted that intellect is not
limited to cybernetic loops.
Mark 21-10-05:
I agree the Intellect as a Dynamic process is not
limited to the static. Social, biological and
inorganic evolution is not limited to the static when
they are recognised as processes. I don't think this
means we can jump straight to the suggestion that
everything is Intellect.
Scott said:
Cybernetics assumes a more or less well-defined goal
or set of criteria by which the governing (steering)
can be evaluated.
Mark 19-10-05:
I agree with you. Yes indeed, in its scientific sense
certainly. But I'm a metaphysician, or like to think i
am when I've had a few beers, and for one such as me,
cybernetics has a metaphysical, value centred
description provided by the MOQ. In this very
generalised sense (and metaphysics deals with the most
basic categories, right?) cybernetics aims at DQ.
Evaluation of a Dynamic shift becomes pragmatic in a
value centred sense.
Scott:
And this is a point of the MOQ that I think needs
correction, namely "aiming" or "evolving toward DQ".
It is based on centric mysticism, and as such needs to
be corrected by the differential mysticism of
Nagarjuna and others.
Mark 21-10-05:
I'm studying Nagarjuna right now as part of an Indian
analytical philosophy course within my MA. I will have
to get back to you on this point.
However, from what i think i already understand,
Nagarjuna, and i regard him to be of the finest
intellectual quality, did not have a conception of
evolution to contend with. Please bare this in mind
Scott? As Pirsig says, the karmic wheel doesn't just
revolve, it is attached to a cart and that cart is
going somewhere.
Scott said:
But as one gets further out on the "less" one gets to
cases where there is no goal, or where the goal is too
vague to be a guide, for example "explaining the
universe", or "increasing Quality". In these cases,
intellect is about changing goals or creating new
ones, about creating criteria, rather than following
them.
Mark 19-10-05:
That's an interesting statement, because one can
insert the MOQ itself at this point as a new
intellectual criteria or goal rather than following a
scientifically, truth based paradigm.
Scott:
Or one insert something other than the MOQ, namely a
MOQ that has been corrected to understand that ALL
goals, including "aiming for DQ" are capable of being
deconstructed. In doing so, intellect frees itself
from another limit. It is no longer cybernetic, or
rather, can choose to be cybernetic or not.
Mark 21-10-05:
Fair point. However, i take issue with your notion of
deconstructing that which is conceptually free. I do
not think that is at all possible.
Scott said:
Yes. Being open and mentioning feedback are in line
with my saying that intellect creates and reflects on
SQ, in addition to just manipulating it.
Mark 19-10-05:
It seems to doesn't it? But there is a view which
moves away from this by placing a secondary
ontological layer between sq and DQ.
(By layer, i do not mean level. A layer of secondary
ontological events lies on a continuum between chaos
and stagnation, with 'It' in between)
The secondary ontological layer, or excellence as i
see it, is also static and in no way attempts to
encapsulate or conceptualise DQ.
So, DQ creates and reflects on a continuum of sq
ontological events which oscillate in a cybernetic
sense around 'It' or itself.
The cybernetic process is Intellect at work - the
static repertoire is what the cybernetic process
creates and works with. Sadly, the static description
of cybernetic process would become part of a newer
static repertoire that happens to include it along
with everything else.
Scott:
It looks to me like this secondary ontological layer
is just required to avoid saying that intellect is DQ.
The beginning of epicycles, so to speak.
Intellect is creative. DQ is creative. What's the big
deal? Just say intellect is DQ and be done with it.
But no, apparently we must instead learn to see the
creativity of intellect as a "mere seeming" of
creativity.
An appearance/reality distinction manufactured to
preserve dogma.
Mark 21-10-05:
Jesus wept, that's a vitriolic statement isn't it?
Who put the bee in your helmet?
Are you telling me that the suggestion that no one can
tell you what DQ is is actually a dogma? I would have
rather thought that DQ explodes dogma?
sq produces dogma, not DQ, surely?
Christians and Bodvar Skutvik expound dogma Scott; it
is the likes of they, who tell you what is to be
understood and ejaculate* when you refuse to
understand who expound dogma.
Does Nagarjuna expound dogma when he suggests there
are no essences; emptiness of svabhava? The MOQ
replaces emptiness with that which pulls evolution
towards itself, thus combining nagarjunian, mahayana
Buddhist views with evolution.
2sqEO is near the cutting edge and is an empirical
experience of creativity at work - creatively diving
into the unknown - the un-static, to further quality.
Scott said:
A computer (properly programmed) is an example of a
cybernetic process that manipulates without reflection
or creativity.
Mark 19-10-05:
A computer does not have a biological or social
aspect, yet? In a sense, a computer which has a
biological and social aspect is called a Human being.
Scott:
The comparison fails once one includes freedom. A
human being is free (more or less). A computer is
determined.
Mark 21-10-05:
For now. Quantum processors may change all that one
day.
Scott said:
I agree, but I would say this is why all levels should
be thought of as intellectual, that they all involve
semiosis (the static repertoire *means* something, and
provides feedback, is valued information, resulting in
new latches).
Mark 19-10-05:
Now look here, drop the term 'information,' change
valued to 'value' and you have just said: "the static
repertoire *means* something, and provides feedback,
is value, resulting in new latches"
This does away with your contention that all levels
are intellect and replaces it with value; all levels
are value which is precisely what the MOQ says.
Intellect is simply a very sophisticated matrix of
preferences or values.
Scott:
Why should I drop the word 'information'? Just to be
faithful to the MOQ?
Using that word is what I am arguing for. Where there
is value there is intellect. Where there is preference
there is choice, and handling choices is intellect
(drawing out consequences, comparing them, choosing).
In the absence of comparing and choosing there is no
preference, and no value. Just automaticity.
Mark 21-10-05:
The choices intellect makes are aesthetic ones. This
is the view of Poincare as told in ZMM. Hardly any
physicist (physicists are bleedin' prime examples of
those who may be regarded as 'intellectuals i assume)
will argue with that. Some replace that aesthetic with
God, the MOQ says DQ. DQ is central to creative
thought.
And after going all around the houses, look where we
are: Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology
as harmony. Note: Harmony, Poincare? creativity? The
roll of sq in all that? An MOQ framework?
Why can't you help me go forward instead of dragging
me backwards month in month out?
Scott said:
This does require, though, that we find a way to
distinguish human intellect from non-human, though
perhaps that is all we need: human/non-human.
Mark 19-10-05:
I feel sure this distinction would be, to some extent,
blurred by their interaction? Humans would interact
with other intelligences in ways which would change
both.
Scott:
Who says they aren't interacting? In this materialist
age we have lost touch with the intellect in nature,
but it is there, and I hope we are evolving to be
reacquainted (to final participation, to use
Barfield's phrase).
Mark 21-10-05:
I didn't deny they are did i?
Scott said:
This does not imply that a rock is or has intellect.
Mark 19-10-05:
This does not comply with your earlier suggestion
that: "intellect is DQ". DQ evolved Inorganic and
Biological events before the Intellectual level
evolved at all. Therefore, rocks would have primitive
intellects.
Scott:
Intellect localized in human individuals (making them
individuals in a sense) fairly recently. But the idea
that intellect did not exist at all until then is a
remnant of materialist thinking, which for some reason
the MOQ keeps around.
Mark 21-10-05:
Good God, you know how to stretch a persons patience.
It's so simple a chimp could get it.
Intellect is 'made' of the same 'stuff' as rocks, but
intellect is configured at a level of sophistication
far beyond that of rocks.
A bit like comparing a folded paper plane with
Supersonic Concord.
Scott:
Another point on which it needs correcting.
Mark 21-10-05:
Get a grip on yourself.*
Scott:
(And I would not say that rocks have primitive
intellects. Rocks are bits of the manifestation of SQ,
the expression of intellect.)
Mark 21-10-05:
This sounds like idealism to me. I'm not happy with
that.
Mark said:
Actually, it think you're conflating consciousness
with intellect, because values or patterns of
preferences are awareness or consciousness of the
environment.
Scott:
Actually, I'm conflating consciousness, intellect and
value. They are all three concepts which we need to
talk about the one (non-)thing. No one of them can do
the job on its own, but each of them implies the other
two.
Mark 21-10-05:
You're forgetting that i don't live in 'Scottland'
where the mighty thistle of barbed confusion loftily
chafes of a careless man's wobbly portions.
No, i dwell among the evergreen pastures and shady
groves of dappled thought, where all is but a dancing
kaleidoscope of evolving values.
Scott said:
It does suggest that rocks are analogous to letters or
words that make up statements.
Mark 19-10-05:
This analogy is messy and unhelpful. It may all shewn
away if we simply replace values as the primitive
ontological events of experience.
Rocks are then not analogs, but actual value patterns
of a very low order compared to intellectual value
patterns which are of a very high order.
I would recommend another dip into Lila.
Scott:
Why is that you and DMB assume that if one fully
understands the MOQ there can be no disagreeing with
it?
Mark 21-10-05:
Before you begin to disagree you have to understand
what you are in disagreement with. I don't think you
understand how simple the MOQ is; how, with a slight
twist of perception many things become more clear.
My problem is rather different: I need people who
understand the MOQ to appraise what I'm saying and
then tell me if it's best dropped or pursued?
Scott:
I agree that rocks are actual value patterns. I am
pointing that that makes them part of (non-human)
intellectual patterns as well.
- Scott
Mark 21-10-05:
OK. But that sounds like idealism to me.
* (Ooooo - eeeerrrrrrrrrr!)
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 : Sat Oct 22 2005 - 07:52:46 BST