> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrea Sosio
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2001 10:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MD rogers metaphors
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> absolutely: mine was not an attempt to enforce censorship or suggest you
> shouldn't post your ideas - I apologise if you had this feeling.
>
ok
> > Unless... you see mind as independent of brain!? ...do you?
>
> No, mind is not completely independent of the brain. But, in any
> layered system
> such as a communication network or the world, a layer built on
> top of another
> can exhibit a wholly new nature, that requires new words and new
> concepts to be
> analyzed. Emerging patterns. Semantics from syntax. Meaning. I
> think the MOQ
> does say a lot about this.
You obviously havnt thought about the template material. The point about
emergence is that it reflects the flowering of a seed such that the format
is already encoded in the seed, it just needs a CONTEXT in which to express
itself. THAT is what the template is about, the SOURCE of meaning and its
manifestations in different contexts.
Reverting to mind (brain) workings
> when discussing
> problems that are raised *by* the mind and to which *the mind*
> begs a reply is
> likely to be useless.
>
NOOO WAY.... you seem to think that each level of emergence has a totally
different structure -- it does not, it just has more choices in expression
of the underlying structure. There are infinite ways of expressing
'wholeness' but across the SPECIES the general feeling of 'wholeness' is
constant; local nuances give it 'colour' but thats it - there is no
'redefinition' of 'wholeness' all there are are distortions, exagerations -
IOW topological processes.
The moment you make a distinction you open-up 1:many type thinking 'in here'
and there are distinct patterns that emerge as you refine the distinction.
<snip>
>
> What you find in MOQ is that it is simply a delusion to think
> that scientific
> "facts" are something better or more true than the "stimulation"
> as you call it.
The ignoring of these 'facts' is intellectual corruption. dishonest. Evil.
The stimulation becomes mental masturbation with no honest intent of
actually achieving anything other then a personal or group orgasm! Fun for
the moment, longterm it is sterile.
> Like it or not, a *mind* is writing this mail message and a
> *mind* has wrote
> yours (both probably implemented in full by a brain, but so
> what?). If you take
> it down to neurobiological basic workings or whatever, then why not take a
> further step and speak in terms of particle physics? Many naive scientists
> probably think that we don't treat everything with particle
> physics concepts
> because it would be too complex.
No .. too archetypal. They try, see some of the concepts introduced on
quantum mind list. In the 'chain' from physics-to-chemistry-to-biology the
transformation point is in chemistry; relationships. In the archetypal we
find purity, everything is the same, all electrons are the 'same' all
photons are the 'same', reproduction is asexual/androgyne etc etc chemistry
converts this from purity to MIXING as in biology where genetic diversity
dominates such that different types of 'purity' can emerge from different
mixings but these are all in expression; reproduction is now sexual -- mix
the genes and so immortality gives way to diversity.
Problems come when (a) physicists look at biology with archetypal eyes and
(b) biologists look at physics with typal eyes. There is a 'middle' space,
chemistry. In mind processes we find the same patterns -
neurology-to-biochemistry-to-psychology. Hormones make you horny, high,
depressed, angry etc etc
At the level of conscious processing, of MIND so the SAME patterns are
present where basic objects/relationships distinctions fit in the 'middle'
of neural-to-psychological expression.
> That higher level sciences such
> as biology and
> sociology exist because it would be *too* hard to explain, in
> physics, why a guy
> robbed a bank or had a nervous breakdown. If you had all the knowlegde it
> requires... and the resource to compute that huge amount of
> data... then you
> could explain a nervous breakdown in terms of quark level
> interactions. Isn't
> that true? Well the answer from the MOQ is (IMHO): NO! You
> couldn't! It's not
> that it is too complex
No. you fail to understand emergence and levels, at ALL levels we use the
SAME method. The choices in expression will become 'richer' but these are
harmonics of the core processes that deal with objects and relationships.
That is something the hard-core scientists dont understand; all of their
maps are metaphors capturing OUR sensory systems at work e.g. see my essay
on wave/particle duality at http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/bits.html or go
through the diagram at http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/neuron1.gif
The SAME pattern is constant -- neuron to brain to culture; all that differs
is the choices in expression not the thing expressed. As the conversation
gets more 'stimulating' you are in fact entering the realm of topology; the
stimulation is in the twisting, turning, squeezing as we take a concept and
'play' with it. BUT as in all topology the structure remains the same --
doughnuts are identical to coffee-cups. Ordinality introduces slice'n'dice,
re-combinations etc but at the neurological level they are still objects and
relationships.
As to applying all of this, of 're-structuring' or culture to adapt to
change there are MORAL issues involved; we breed horses to be 'pure' but not
our own species; we are aware of how many of us are 'imperfect' and the
possible consequences of that. Things are now changing with clones etc. the
foundations on which our species has developed are shaking, we need 'new'
perspectives which include perspectives on social quality issues vs species
quality issues. At the moment social quality seeking is destroying the
future of our species. All of these considerations MUST be made in a context
identified with the FACTS FIRST and from those qualitative assessments made.
To have discussion about deriving a methodology, a metaphysics of quality,
without grounding is 'wind'; illusions, delusions. Serve no purpose other
than entertainment. But then perhaps you are bored? is MOQ a 'pasttime'?
something to play with, to give you stimulation? There are good minds on
this list -- wasted so far :-)
- the point is that it is not *pertinent*,
> and you see it
> as soon as you reject the subject/object dychotomy. Higher levels
> bring up new
> concepts and any question raised at that level must be answered
> with concepts at
> that same level - otherwise you are cheating.
>
Not if you understand the methodology is applicable across all levels. More
robust context, more choices in expression but expression of the SAME
things -- objects and relationships.
> Question: "Why did you do this to me?"
> Answer: I hand you a 3D map of my brain.
> So what?
>
Know thyself. know your fellow species members. That way you can avoid
delusions/illusions, suppressions/repressions. You work towards actually
helping your species rather than yourself; you become more proactive rather
than reactive.
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
