From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 20:11:43 BST
Hello Scott,
- Scott said:
> Here's some reasoning, a kind of summary of some things I've > > been
saying lately, and I'm curious about what you all make of it.
mel:
Thanks! Good formulation of a summary, it gives a
good framework to test thoughts on.
- Scott said:
> 1. Are static patterns of value universals or particulars? Answer: > They
must be universals, as implied by the word "pattern". A
> particular, once it exists, cannot be changed. Only the rules for
> producing particulars can be changed, and so it is only as
> universals that there is value for the present and future (the
> particular does serve to exemplify the universal, however) .
mel:
While many significant patterns may turn out to be universal,
I suspect that many patterns will be particular. For Example:
Physically: local conditions may influence the need for
certain patterns or diminish the presence of others.
Biologically: The structure of a species or an ecosystem
may 'require' unique patterns and not others
Culturally: As a culture is built of and builds patterns there
may be highly specific patterns.
Intellectually: As a very dynamic level?????? toss a coin,
but it seems that systems of thought are like mathematical
geometries, some are only valid as dependent conditions.
DQ patterns may be more succeptible to particularity...
- Scott said:
> 2. DQ works with existing SQ to produce new SQ. (MOQ thesis).
mel:
Seems right from this chair...
- Scott said:
> 3. The word for working with universals to produce new
> universals is intellect, as it is a matter of evaluating existing
> universals (concepts, rules) by imagining the consequences of
> choosing among possibilities, and making the choice.
mel:
At the intellectual level this seems to fit, especially
considering synthesis, but what may be true for
new patterns in the lower evolutionary levels DQ
is probably not intellectual. Not sure there is exactly a
term...
- Scott said:
> 4. Therefore, DQ is intellect-in-use, and all SQ are static
> intellectual patterns of value (which may be subdivided into
> inorganic, biological, social, and purely intellectual (mathematics, > for
example) static intellectual patterns of value. This does not
> imply that my thought of, say, plant growth is plant growth. It does
> suggest that my thought of plant growth is a pale reflection of the
> thought that grows plants).
mel:
It seems that there is 'intellection' that is more
Static than Dynamic. Example: If I perform an
exercise of predicate calculus on a 300 year old
logical argument, that would be fairly Static.
Little new arises. However engaging in an MoQ
discussion on this thread may become far more
Dynamic...
- Scott said:
> 5. Therefore, Quality is Intellect (while not ceasing to be Quality).
mel:
I am not sure that All Quality is Intellect, nor that
All Intellect is Quality, but the highest function of
intellect is surely more Dynamic than Static.
Oops, you did not specify D or S; so, as all that we can
be aware of is of Quality, then YES.
--Thanks again. Good start...
thanks--mel
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 Sep 07 2004 - 20:14:44 BST