Re: MD levels (Down with Types of Value, Up with Types of Patterns)

From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 13:12:36 GMT

  • Next message: Peterfabriani@aol.com: "Re: MD Has Quality been divided?"

    Steve wrote:

    (I.) I started by critiquing the idea of classifying patterns of values as
    being particular types of things as differentiated by the four levels. Do
    you disagree on that point?

    (II.) Or the second point? Because I didn't want to merely reject the types
    of patterns without offering an alternative understanding, I defended a
    "types of awareness/ways of valuing" interpretation of the levels.

    I can accept the moq's description of reality as patterns of Value. I can
    accept it's description of four types of Value but I can't accept four types
    of patterns of value.

    Wim says:
    > I know how to categorize patterns of values: by the way they are
    > maintained/latched.
    > (inorganic: unequal probability distributions in the quantum behavior of
    > subatomic particles; biological: DNA stabilized by protein structures around
    > it; social: unconscious copying of behavior; intellectual: conscious
    > motivation/justification of actions in a way that is acceptable to others).

    Steve says:
    Then can you answer my taxonomy questions for me?

    "To disagree with the first point (I.), I think one would have to answer my
    taxonomy questions: What type of pattern is a person? What type of pattern
    is a tree? What type of pattern is Shakespeare's Hamlet? What type of
    pattern is the earth? What type of pattern is the universe? And the answer
    must be either inorganic, biological, social, or intellectual. But only one
    of them for each."

    If you think that these are inappropriate questions as I do, then we don't
    disagree on the first point.

    Thanks for responding, and I am sorry I forgot to mention your response. I
    better understand your position on a "ways of valuing/types of awareness"
    view of the levels based on your last post, but I don't want to respond to
    your critique of my second point until I understand where you stand on the
    first. On the whole, I can probably accept your critique, but I will have
    some questions. I still think that a "ways of valuing/types of awareness"
    understanding makes more sense than a "types of 'things'" understanding of
    the levels as far as SOM interpretations go.

    Steve

    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 : Sat Nov 09 2002 - 13:03:50 GMT