From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 18:37:22 BST
Hi Scott
I wonder if your view here of priority of the universal
is conceptually reducing the reality of DQ's creativity.
It is right from a phenomenal/experience point of view
but ontologically? If a new event occurs it could be unique
and simply flux, if it repeats it moves towards the possibility
of expressing a universal, it surely has to raise itself out of
the flux persistently to start to look like it will repeat
enough to be a universal and not an accidental repeat.
I think it is plausible/likely that when a universal emerges
that it is doing so via a cumulative influence from previous
events that later events are being influenced by. Given this
approach every universal originates with a genetic (not DNA)
particular/unique prototype to be foolowed by non-unique events
after that. What problems would you have with this?
DM
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
> 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" <jse885@earthlink.net>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > >
> > > 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> 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 - 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 : Thu Sep 09 2004 - 18:49:19 BST