Horse wrote on Mon, 23 Nov 1998
> Hi Roger and Squad
> Great post. Apologies if my comments about the general lack of discussion
> offended. They weren't aimed at you as I hadn't received you post at the time.
> I agree with the majority of what you say but there a couple of points which I
> would like to discuss.
> > BELOW IS A MODEL OF RELATIONSHIPS OR INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PATTERNS
> > ¨ The left axis reflects the dominant pattern, the bottom axis reflects the
> > non-dominant pattern. That is, the rows dominate the columns. If this doesn't
> > transmit right, I will resend separately .... it is crucial to this post!
> > MORALITY CHART
> > Dominant
> > Value
> >
> > Intellect..Computer Medicine Democracy Truth/LIES
> > Social... House Priest Marry/WAR CENSOR
> > Biolog... Nutrients Breed/KILL PLAGUE DEAD BOHR
> > Inorg.. Matter/CHAOS DEATH POMPEII LOST IPoV
> > [ Inorganic] [ Biological ] [ Social ] [ Intellect ]
> > Dominated Value
> The above wasn't something I disagree with, I'm just not quite clear about it. It
> looks interesting and useful so would you be prepared to expand on it a bit.
> You've made some comments below but I'd appreciate some more detail.
Hi Roger, Horse & Group.
I think Roger has made a great contribution with his morality chart,
it may prove very valuable in accessing the MOQ quickly. Reminds me
of the distance tables in geographical books and atlases with ist
"staggered" position of same items on two axes. Splendid! Perhaps you
could make it into a graphic picture with lines and boxes?
Horse's comment on the dynamic/static perspective is valid but
does not jeopardize the idea behind the graphics. As for myself I
would - of course(SOLAQI) - have had "subject/object" instead of
truth/LIES in the dominant-dominated INTELLECT intersection and also
- perhaps - "Brain" in the Intellect's [inorganic] intersection, but
the designations are possibly open for discussion/revision Roger?
Also, can a possible fifth (Q) level be incorporated? Just for
theory's sake?
The "DEAD BOHR" is a little mystery. Please elaborate.
Roger wrote in another post Sat 21 Nov.:
> I have seen a huge pattern of posts pointing to a better definition
> of the Intellectual level's definition. I agree with the need to
> define it better. It seems to me that it is includes something along
> the lines of "patterns formed by the values of developing logically
> consistent models of reality". I know this skates up close to SOM,
> but I think we can keep from going over the edge.
Why not go over the edge and simply define Q-Intellect as SOM (or
stripped of it's M: S-O logic)? That way S-O is truly and permanently
contained by the MOQ. All other definitions are doomed to run into
difficulties. It's inevitable; the top level having a "binge" period
as top notch assuming a posture of being REALITY itself =S-O
Metaphysics! Only recently has one dared to point to its lack of
clothing.
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:40 BST