RE: MD The empirical verifiability of value

From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 12:44:33 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "MD Scare Quotes and Highlighting"

    Ham

    Ham said:
    If mind and matter are completely separate, each contained in its own
    pattern type, how are they "capable of each containing the other without
    contradiction"?

    Paul:
    The important statement here is that mind and matter are completely
    separate levels of *value*.

    The intellectual patterns of mind depend on cultural patterns which in
    turn depend on biological then inorganic patterns, as such they may be
    said to be contained in inorganic patterns but, because the levels are
    not continuous, they are not themselves *composed of* inorganic patterns
    of atoms and molecules as a materialist would have it.

    The scientific description of "matter" is an intellectual pattern which
    describes and predicts the behaviour of inorganic patterns but the
    inorganic patterns themselves are not "only in the mind" as an idealist
    would have it.

    Mind is not an extension of matter. Matter is not an extension of mind.
    Both are an extension of value.

    Ham said:
    Again, the author's conclusion contradicts his premise. Mental patterns
    do originate out of organic nature.

    Paul:
    Not according to the MOQ which says that *social patterns* originate
    from organic nature. Intellectual patterns originate out of social
    patterns.

    Ham said:
    There is certainly a commonality in Pirsig's development of Quality and
    Value. What troubles me, however, is the absence of man's role in the
    MOQ

    Paul:
    I don't think that man's role is absent from the MOQ. LILA is all about
    man's role in evolution.

    Ham said:
    ...the author's insistence on an empirical basis for it (despite his
    rejection of SOM)...

    Paul:
    You seem to be equating "empirical" with "objective," this may be
    confusing you.

    Ham said:
    ...and, of course, what seems to be a deliberate avoidance of an a
    priori source.

    Paul:
    There is no need to deduce the existence of something beyond experience
    when you take something that is experienced as the starting point of
    your metaphysics. The avoidance of this is a good thing.

    Regards

    Paul

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 Aug 31 2004 - 14:14:20 BST