From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 23:06:12 BST
David M,
> all humans have their humanity in common but every
> face is different except twins to a very near extent.
A particular human can have universal features, that is, the person being
the same in some respect over time. If I think about my neuroses, I am
thinking about universals, which I can change. If I am thinking about how I
did in a personality test yesterday, I am thinking of a particular, which I
cannot change.
> Is a pattern of 2 universal, or 3?
Yes. The number 2 is a universal, while the set of pixels in '2' is a
particular. If you add 2 to 5 and get 7 you are using universals. If you
get 25 you are probably using particulars. (Note: there is fuzziness
depending on what context you are in. From the viewpoint of handwriting
analysis or typography, the numeral '2' could be a universal. If one really
gets into it, the relation of universals and particulars gets into an area
of contradictory identity, but for my argument, this is not necessary.)
where does a repeat
> become a universal?
When the repetition is noticed and thought about, named, etc. However, that
is from the view of a belief in a passive subject. In my opinion, one
cannot recognize anything without having a concept for it. From a SOM
viewpoint this is a chicken and egg problem. From a divine or artistic or
intellectual point of view, the universal comes first, and is then
expressed in particulars, though it is not until it is expressed that the
universal is complete (and with each expression may be modified). You can
start a sentence without knowing how it will finish. There was an idea to
be expressed, which gets you started, but the idea isn't fully known until
the sentence is finished.
- Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Roberts" < >
> To: < >
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:10 AM
> Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
>
>
> > 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 -
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
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 -
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 : Thu Sep 09 2004 - 00:23:04 BST