From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 17:39:39 GMT
Wim,
>Wim said: Did you answer my 9 Nov 11:42 +0100 question already?
> 'HOW exactly you think you can categorize values DIRECTLY?'
Steve says: I still don't have an answer. I gave up on trying to
understand the levels as "ways of valuing" because you and Davor convinced
me that I was making a fundamental error of SOM thinking. My problem right
now is that I'm not completely sure what SOM thinking is. I have been
avoiding thinking about the levels so as not to reinforce my own
misconceptions, and I have been trying to listen again to how others are
applying the levels.
(I've sought clarification in my post under "Contradictions?.")
(Wim said earlier:
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).
I can categorize values indirectly by interpreting them as the value of
maintaining a pattern of values of one of these types (i.e. as static
quality) or as the value of changing a pattern of values away from
disintegration (i.e. as Dynamic Quality).)
I understand that patterns can be categorized directly as you say "by the
way they are latched" and therefore are not indirect subjective
categorizations like "ways of valuing."
Do you stand by the definitions that you gave for how patterns are latched?
The last one about intellectual patterns being latched "in a way that is
acceptable to others" has a social ring to it. Would it make sense to say
that intellectual patterns are latched as mental structures of the kind that
one is conscious of ie concepts? (By including the word "conscious" in your
definition of intellectual patterns and "unconscious" in your definition of
social patterns a subject is brought into play, no? Check my thinking here:
it's okay for moq because the thinker is deduced from the thought and not
the reverse.)
Wim said:
> I would be interested to read what you think of the quote I just provided in
> the '(Wim is it.) Focus forum - round four' thread. That quote more or less
> founds this understanding of 'patterns of values'.
Thanks for prodding me to get back to work trying to understand the moq.
I think that quote is helpful to me for understanding how values come first,
then subjects and objects. Subjects and objects are deduced from value
which explains why we can't use SOM to make moral judgments. In a way, that
would be backward. Do I have it right?
Thanks,
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 : Tue Nov 26 2002 - 17:34:26 GMT