From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 00:10:28 BST
Mel,
> - 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.
I should have been clearer. By "universal" I mean a generality, that is, a
universal property is something that is true for all the members of a set,
while a particular property is only true for one member (or a few members).
Therefore, the word "pattern" implies universality. So only a particular
culture may practice human sacrifice, but that practice is a universal for
that culture, while an act of sacrificing someone is a particular.
My point is that only the general practice of human sacrifice in that
culture is a static pattern of value (for that culture). That Joe got
sacrificed yesterday is not. The significance is that DQ can only work on
the general practice. Once Joe got sacrificed, that cannot be changed. Only
the pattern can be. Likewise, the finches on one of the islands may evolve
differently than on one of the other because of some environmental pattern,
and so the pattern of the finches is changed, but each finch does not
change.
>
> DQ patterns may be more succeptible to particularity...
Well, DQ by definition is not a pattern, though I think one could speak of
patterns of DQ-instigated change.
>
> - 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...
I'm arguing that the correct term for the creation of new static patterns
at all levels is "intellect". It is true that we only experience our own
intellect, but once one (if one) accepts that what DQ works on at all
levels are patterns, and not particulars, then "intellect" is the right
term for change at all levels. What prevents us from accepting this (I
think) is that we have become used to the idea that change at all levels is
reducible to inorganic change. The MOQ takes a step at getting away from
this, but doesn't address the means of change at higher levels. So what I
am saying is that all static patterns are "ideational" (if that is a word),
by which I mean they are word-like or idea-like, and not particular-like.
>
> - 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...
True, but that is a separate issue. Intellect can be repetitious or
creative, but my claim that either way it applies at all levels. An egg
will turn into a chicken the same way a zillion other eggs did, but it is
still following a pattern to do so, and "following a pattern" is an act of
intellect. It requires matching the particulars of an environment to a
pattern to determine what to do.
- Scott
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 : Wed Sep 08 2004 - 00:45:20 BST