RE: MD Democracy in the MOQ

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 09:41:33 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Democracy in the MOQ"

    Paul and People
      
    On 1 Dec you wrote:
     
    > Bo said:
    > A fifth moral code? Doesn't that indicate a "budding level" above
    > intellect that creates another struggle? This is of course my own
    > Quality level
     
    > Paul:
    > What would that level be called? Static patterns of Quality quality?
    > Quality patterns of value?

    Steve asked me the same question a while ago and my response is
    notorious vague because I haven't found a satisfactory formulation.
    There is a long history for this 5th level idea (as long as the SOL itself)
    because if intellect is S/O, then the MOQ must "leave home". It has
    moved from postulating an outright 5th level, over a "budding" 5th to a
    "rebel intellectual pattern".

    At first many caught on to the 5th level idea and suggested several
    scenarios for such a development, mostly sci-fi-like global mental-
    computer network, but this is not "beyond intellect" at all, rather
    projecting its mind/matter patterns on to new refinement. Mark (then
    Squonk) was one of those, but grew cold when I insisted that the
    Quality itself was the only candidate because it replaces the SOM.

    You call such a 5th level's patterns "quality quality", but I stick to the
    "rebel" concept. It has not started to create its own static patterns, but
    spends an uneasy co-existence with intellect. However, there are
    other angles to these things, it has to do with what I called the strong
    interpretation of the MOQ, something that alludes to Quantum
    Physics two schools. Einstein (weak) stuck to his "hidden parameter"
    chimera; that some hitherto unknown information would remove the
    quantum weirdness) while Bohr & Heisenberg maintained that the
    quantum world had no connection to the macro world.

    *) Einstein did formulate an experiment that would prove or disprove
    the hidden parameter theory. It could not be performed until 1982 and
    was done by Alain Aspect, but it showed that there are no such
    parameters, the quantum theory's strong interpretation is right.

    This I transfer to the MOQ where the notion that the MOQ can be
    explained by intellect's logic is the "weak interpretation" while the one
    that it is a "level" beyond intellect with its own logic is the "strong
    interpretation". All efforts to explain the MOQ from SOM's premises
    (intellect's) leads to something resembling the Schrødinger Cat
    paradox. Best demonstrated by the LC annotation that we discussed
    in the "What comes first" thread).

    The MOQ bears a lot of likenesses with Quantum Physics in its
    unfailing accuracy of predicting outcomes of "experiments", but also
    the impossibility to get from SOM to the MOQ smoothly as Pirsig tries
    in the said annotation by equating "social approval" with the Q-social
    level and "nature" with the Q-inorganic level ..and so on. The MOQ is
    the first ever creation of a metaphysics and Pirsig's referring to it in the
    Aristotelian (metaphysics) sense was an understandably safeguard
    from the time when he wrote LILA and did not know if anyone would
    understand ...or declare him a nutcase, but now such a caution is an
    hindrance.

    > Bo replied to Paul's scoffing:
    > Paul's scoffing at the "era" idea is based on a misunderstanding. That
    > each level is "left behind" by the formation of the next higher does
    > not mean that it is permanently ...anything. Each level has had an epoch
    > of dominance - when it was Q-evolution's spearhed - that can't be
    > denied.

    > Paul:
    > I'm not denying that each the MOQ postulates that each level has an
    > era of dominance, but if we're talking about "epochs" then it is more
    > accurate to say that there was an inorganic-Dynamic era, then an
    > inorganic-biological-Dynamic era, and so on.

    Yes definitely the last static expansion borders on to the DQ void, but
    the last/highest always defining reality. At the inorg-bio-social/
    dynamic stage a reality was created as conveyed by various
    mythologies, while our inorg-bio-socio-intellectual/dynamic stage
    created the subject/object world. The "dynamic" always at the creative
    edge, never at the static core.

    In my opinion
    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 Dec 03 2003 - 09:44:32 GMT