From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 13:48:37 GMT
Hi Matt,
MATT
> The problem is that this big, noun definition (I
> believe it to be the common definition) can't fit into
> the MoQ in the love=value sense.
DICTIONARY.COM
Love\, n. 1. A feeling of strong attachment induced by that which delights
or commands admiration; pre["e]minent kindness or devotion to another;
affection; tenderness; as, the love of brothers and sisters.
RICK
This is the common defintion of love (my 3 dictionaries all list something
very similar as the primary definition as well--- none of them contain any
reference to this 'mystic' love you seem convinced of). As you can see, my
"love as a species of value" theory captures this defintion perfectly. If
you're dedicated enough to crack open a dictionary and go through the
meanings one by one, I think you'll find there's no definition of love, noun
or verb (other than your own personal definition, which isn't any dictionary
that I own, and its use a scoring term in tennis) that doesn't reflect my
fomulation of love as the most intense species of value.
MATT
Only the verb form
> can do that, and the verb form is totally independent
> of the noun form (as it is specific in each instance,
> between two people, not being derived from the big
> noun (unless you subscribe to some sort of mystic
> metaphysics)). Basically, the verb form is
> insignificant, as it only relates to two people per
> instance, and is a mere product of our biological
> make-up.
RICK
Matt, do you read the posts before you comment? I was very specific about
the fact that my theory accouted for activity at all levels. In the MoQ,
ALL PATTERNS AT ALL LEVELS VALUE THINGS. Biologicial love between two
humans is merely one manifestion of this intense value. It can occur
between any number of patterns at any level. Moreover, I believe my MoQ
formulation of "love" applies to all forms of the word I found in the
dictionary, both noun and verb.
MATT
If you do believe that A
> valuing B intensely equals A 'loving' B, then isn't
> this merely a semantic point, *separate* from the
> 'love' in the popular (noun) concept?
RICK
No, I think I have shown it to be a restatement of the popular concept of
love in MoQ terms (and when I say 'popular concept' I mean the one in the
dictionaries, not the one in your head).
take care
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Tue Jan 28 2003 - 13:48:57 GMT