From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 01:06:43 GMT
>
> Steve said:
> 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.
>
> dmb says:
> But only one of them for each? Maybe this is where you went wrong. People
> and things are made up of various mixures of the levels. An intellectual
> person, for example, can only be so if she first has inorganic, organic and
> social level patterns all in place already. Intellectual values include all
> the previous levels even as it is something entirely different, something
> more than the sum. Objects can be seen this way too. The art example works
> well here. Its certainly made of some kind of material; synthetic man-made
> stuff, natural fibers, steel, whatever. Let's say its built of both
> inorganic and organic level patterns. There is a social dimension, the
> controversies, the shocked blue noses, the funding disputes. Perhaps it has
> intellectual value and was in fact designed to instigate a public discussion
> of sexuality and art. Hopefully, it has aesthetic value and/or is an honest
> rendering of the artist's experiences. So even an object, hypothetical as it
> is, can be composed of patterns of value from all four levels. This
> classification system works equally well in describing levels of
> consciousness as it does the "stuff" of the world because they are not two
> different things.
Steve says:
You are making the point that I've been trying to make though you seem to
think that you are disagreeing with me.
Its interesting to me that you in particular are making this point.
On 10/26 you replied to Sam that he was wrong in calling Democracy a social
pattern of value and that it was instead an intellectual value.
My interjection to this disagreement on 10/27 was the first time I raised
the point of a problem with classifying patterns as only one type of value.
Anyway, I'm glad that you seem to agree with the first point: Patterns of
value are patterns of the four types of value, not merely one type per
pattern.
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 : Sun Nov 10 2002 - 01:48:10 GMT