From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 20:49:31 BST
Dear Sam,
You agreed 9 Aug 3:08 +0100 that your earlier remarks can be used to build a
basic metaphysics in which the sq-levels are defined as:
1st level: patterns of value that are shared by all what exists
2nd level: patterns of value that are shared by a whole species, category of
species, all life or certain members of a species
3rd level: patterns of value that are shared by a group
4th level: patterns of value that characterize an individual or rather its
personality
Can patterns specific for one member of a species belong to the 2nd level?
How do you distinguish 2nd level patterns of value that are shared by
certain members of a species from 3rd level patterns of value (shared by a
group)?
Can you summarize for me what else is going at the 4th level that is
essential to define 4th level patterns of value? What about individuals with
comparable characters and personality traits? Do they share a pattern and
does that make the pattern belong to the 3rd or even 2nd level?
What type of values are you referring to with 'presiding values'? Values
atributed to objects by subjects or values that are there before the
distinction between subject and object can be made?
You charged me with a "non sequitur". I didn't learn Latin, with the help of
Google I found out, that you probably mean that you don't agree that
'natural selection' at the 4th level may be seen as a matter of 'natural
selection' of 'personalities' or 'personality traits' if you define the 4th
level as patterns of value that characterize an individual or rather its
personality. I didn't understand your explanation of why you disagree
though.
You were asking about "the equivalent of 'natural selection' at the
intellectual level", weren't you? You had to clarify your earlier question
("how do ... intellectual patterns respond to DQ? How do they exercise
preference?") in this way, because you didn't get satisfactory answers to
it. Platt only wrote about truth being latched because of satisfying
individual truth criteria, which doesn't explain a lot. Reinier ignored your
starting point that "intellectual patterns [of value] ... exercise
preference" and wrote "I don't think the most valuable idea always wins.",
i.e. about ideas BEING PREFERRED BY people, instead of about
ideas/intellectual patterns PREFERING DQ over sq (or one type of sq over
another).
If character or personality traits are your 4th level patterns, they are
what has to be 'naturally selected' because they 'prefer' to
combine/develop/relate in certain ways. Certain character/personality traits
and/or certain characters/personalities survive and others don't, just like
elements, species and societies at lower levels. Is that a more acceptable
'sequitur' to you? In my view have just rephrased the same idea.
Or did you only disagree with my statement that survival of
character/personality traits and/or characters/personalities implies their
being copied?
How else do "individual pattern ... aggregate further patterns"?
Quakers do talk about being guided by the Light (I hardly ever use that
metaphor myself, but I can translate it if it is being used), but Quakers
are not 4th level patterns of value. That metaphor doesn't clarify how
character/personality traits and/or characters/personalities are 'naturally
selected' or 'prefer' DQ over sq.
Truth satisfies the honest (or the holy or the least self-deceived). Is that
what you mean?
But what is the 'pattern' in 'truth' or 'honesty'? Aren't they both just
subjective judgements about objects (or about the 'self', an objectified
subject)?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Thu Aug 11 2005 - 21:19:20 BST