Re: MD levels

From: Magnus Berg (McMagnus@home.se)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 19:56:51 GMT

  • Next message: Peterfabriani@aol.com: "Re: MD Pantheism and MOQ"

    Hi Steve

    You wrote:
    > Let me clarify. I'm not sure we disagree. I use the word "thing" to
    > represent patterns of value only to make a point because I think there is
    > consensus that material objects are not to be categorized in the levels. My
    > point is that no pattern of value can be classified. There are types of
    > value, but not types of patterns of value.
    >
    > As you say an eatable thing must be composed of both biological and
    > inorganic value. A particular pattern of biological value and inorganic
    > value might form a hamburger, for example. So the hamburger can then not be
    > classified as only biological or only inorganic. It is a pattern of value,
    > period. A person must be composed of all four types of value. (Even a
    > hamburger has all four types in a way.) A particular person is a particular
    > pattern of value. (But I would rather say that a person has a capacity to
    > value in all four ways.)
    >
    > Since the moq considers thoughts and ideas to be real, I have attempted to
    > work with an extended definition of "thing" to be "any pattern of value."
    >
    > I did this because people were discussing whether "democracy" is a social or
    > intellectual value. IMO categorizing "democracy" is just as inappropriate
    > as categorizing a material object since a material object and democracy are
    > both patterns of value and so just as "thingish" in moq terms. (But I would
    > rather say that democracy can be valued in a social way and in an
    > intellectual way.)
    >
    > Perhaps some "things" actually are just one type of value. Is a rock only
    > inorganic value? But if a particular rock is where the chief in the tribe
    > traditionally sits, then does it not also have social value? (In Platt's
    > terms it does not have social awareness and is therefore inferior to the
    > chief. I agree that it is on a lower level of awareness but it still has
    > all four types of quality to some degree even if it is a really really low
    > degree.)
    >
    > The idea of democracy (or any idea) may be thought of as pure intellectual
    > value while democracy as it is played out in society is pure social value.
    >
    > Perhaps, democracy has all four types of value as well. It has low
    > inorganic value for its lack of physical form, but this low value is not a
    > lack of value (or perhaps really high inorganic value since it is free of
    > the laws of nature). It has social value in its ability to preserve society
    > and it has biological value in that it preserves the society that helps
    > protect life from the forces that seek to destroy life. As an idea it has
    > intellectual value by definition.
    >
    > Am I making any sense?

    Oh yes! You're making very much sense to me. I guess I've missed it if
    you have elaborated on your extended "thing" definition. Do you have any
    particular posts in mind? I'd be interested in reading them.

            Magnus

    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 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 06 2002 - 19:57:50 GMT