Glen and others,
Glen, thank you for answering my mail.
Glen wrote:
>I retract my surmise with surprise and apologise.
No apologises needed, but it was enjoyable that you should select such a statement and including bridges to your example.
Glen wrote:
>Could define a system that contains an element of freedom (Dynamic Quality)
>that would not in be subjective? I think not. If you are correct then the
>MoQ is fatally flawed. I do not think this is the case. Why did you choose
>the terms "right" or "wrong"? These are prejoritive terms and I don't think
>they are appropriate. Is a stone bridge "right" and a steel one "wrong"?
>Is the Dali "right" and the Escher "wrong"?
I was rather thinking is terms of that is seems that you think it is "right" for people to protest violently against a government or international forum like the Seattle riots last year and the Gøteborg riots some weeks ago. I think that using violence is "wrong", and would advocate use of pacifism in such instances. This will of course also apply to other forms of protest against the static values in society, not only the libertarian ideas, but I just had to choose that example.
I guess we are basing both our "right"'s and "wrong"'s on MoQ (although I have a hard time understanding your logic, but it would not surprise me if it was better than mine). The terms might be badly chosen, and an advice for a better choice is welcome.
Glen continued:
>If this is true at the
>inorganic level then it would follow that it would true at the other levels
>too. As a software engineer by profession I understand that it is possible
>to re-arrange the same instruction set in a countless number of ways and
>still accomplish the same task. All of these ways are correct and none of
>these ways are wrong. Do they look different? Yes. Some might have
>advantages other others and from these you select the ones that best fits
>your needs. Is the result a good solution to the problem? This is the real
>question. We select the design that survives the tests of what we concieve
>our needs to be. Survival of the fitess! If there is subjectivity in the
>process (in software) it's usually because we have identified incorrect
>needs.
According to RMP (somewhere in Lila) Survival of the fittest = Survival of the most quality. This probably fits well with what you say.
So what needs do we identify? Is your search for quality for you as a person, for US as a society, for the population in the world or all societies in the universe (human and non-human). As you go to a higher level, it becomes more and more difficult it seems to me. And the results would be different.
If it is the result that is the important part, you would need to be able to travel in time in order to check if pacifism or riots are giving the best result for the world 100 years from now. In fact, I do not see that I can use your method, but I might be lacking creativity here.
Sincerely,
Gerhard
PS
I have to apologise for the very bad spelling in my mail's earlier today. Definitely low quality. I'll try to improve.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:22 BST