From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 20:27:02 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ
>Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:29:57 -0000
>
>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?
Hi Sam
I think that depends on one's point of view.
>(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 don't disagree with you here.
>
> > 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 tend to agree with you that the MOQ denies this but at the same time it
says "objects" makes a great shorthand for inorganic and biological patterns
of value.
>
> > 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.
I believe the MOQ says idealism pertains to social and intellectual patterns
of value, so if that's what you mean, I agree.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
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 Nov 20 2004 - 21:28:34 GMT