From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 17:08:30 GMT
Rick,
A few things:
> 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
Matt: Yes, and look, it's a noun, as I said.
> 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.
You ask if I read the posts. Well, have you even read
Lila? Patterns don't value things, patterns manifest
value, hence the term "patterns of value", not
"patterns that value" - this is something of an
important thing, you know.
But moreover, you suggest that I don't know what
you're on about, which I do. It's just that you
overstate the importance of love. You do know of love
as a concept? Something that consumes vast
proportions of lyrics, books, poems, and social
rhetoric - something that man has seeked to unravel
since the beginning of man itself. And you want to
cram this vast concept into a tiny definition, value?
> 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).
Well actually you've just proven that it *is* simply a
semantic point. You've said it's a restatement of a
popular concept (aka defintion) which clearly is a
semantic point. You are merely pointing something
out, not coming up with a new positive applicable
idea.
The thing is, you're point is valid, but I disagree
with it's value as an idea, especially when you note
the potential for confusion with the concept of love,
as opposed to reality of love. I wouldn't make such a
big deal of this, or be so crudely critical, had you
not been utterly unreceptive to my friendly point,
being rude to me for making it.
take care
Matt
=====
From Matt.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
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 - 17:08:58 GMT