From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 11 2004 - 10:27:00 BST
Hi DMB
But how are we to understand how SQ is possible?
Of course SQ & DQ are universals that we use to understand
experience. But DQ alone would be flux. It is SQ that
allows patterns to occur and to be recognised. I think
we should consider 2 types of causality that SQ involves.
(From Geoffrey Read:http://www.geoffreyread.com)
proximate causality where SQ patterns interact with each
other, we would normally describe in SOM terms of force,
but MOQ would suggest that local SQ events should be described
in terms of a less local SQ event when appropriate, eg
a man eats a growing plant. But there is another form of
causality that underlies there being any patterns at all and this
is sympathic causality, and it is this that majkes us think
more in universal than particular terms. Particulars interact via
proximity, overlapping SQ patterns & in enclosed subsets,
sympathic causality is non-local and acts over time, like
Sheldrake's morphic resonance, but G.Read suggests a non-field
based alternative. SQ patterns interact locally & give us notions
of thingness & particulars, universals seem to be implied/emerge via the sameness
of self-organising similar patterns. The underlying reality is the
persistence & re-appearance of patterns.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: David Buchanan
To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 2:55 AM
Subject: RE: MD A bit of reasoning
Two cents from dmb:
I think universals and particulars would both be considered static patterns in the MOQ. Universals would be found among social and intellectual level patterns while particulars would be found among organic and inorganic patterns. But they really just boil down to the old mind and matter debates, which are a symptom of SOM's flaws. In the MOQ, I imagine the questions about universals and particulars are pretty much dissolved. Both are considered equally real, although the important distinctions remain.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Roberts [mailto:jse885@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 10:19 AM
To: moq_discuss
Subject: MD A bit of reasoning
All,
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.
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) .
2. DQ works with existing SQ to produce new SQ. (MOQ thesis).
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.
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).
5. Therefore, Quality is Intellect (while not ceasing to be Quality).
- 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 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 11:32:42 BST