From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 16:29:57 GMT
Hi Dan,
> I take this to mean "value" and "quality" are interconvertible. So people
> don't have value, value has people. I hope perhaps this explains a little
> better how my argument cuts across your argument.
> In the MOQ, it is value that is primary, not the patterns. Patterns are
> intellectual constructs.
I'm afraid I'm still missing it. Are you saying that all intellectual discriminations of patterns
are to be jettisoned? (Then: whither the levels of SQ?) But once you accept intellectual
discrimination of patterns to be legitimate, I can't see why it is an inappropriate question to ask
whether 'that which we commonly refer to as a person' has a corresponding pattern within that
framework, or whether it is an epiphenomenal illusion. I'm not wanting to give 'person' (or 'self'
or 'I') an ontologically superior status, I'm merely wanting to preserve the validity of that
description as having Quality, in the same way that our language of rocks and trees retains Quality,
even if those patterns are also intellectual constructs.
> I think you should perhaps re-read the section on gravity. It seems to me
> you're saying that there are laws "out there" waiting to be discovered. I
> believe the MOQ disagrees.
I agree that the MoQ disagrees that there are laws 'out there'. Again, I don't see why that is a
necessary implication of what I'm arguing for. In some ways what I'm seeking is remarkably narrow,
which is why it wouldn't in the end surprise me if the MoQ *did* cater to my objections. I just
can't see how at the moment. I'm wanting to say that there is a pattern of value which can be
discerned (described) and which operates at the 4th level, and which is of more value than the
social level elements (and also has value independent of 'ideas'). I think the MoQ denies this, but
I could be misunderstanding it.
> I read "the measure of all things" as being synonymous with "the value of
> all things" whereas a "measurer" is performing the valuation, set apart from
> all things.
I read it differently; more that the measurer was creating the values through the descriptions
(shades of Adam naming the animals, or inventing the 'law' of gravity). In other words, idealism.
Cheers
Sam
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 : Fri Nov 19 2004 - 17:20:52 GMT