From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 09:56:19 GMT
Platt,
>Paul:
>> >So, as with all knowledge according to this thesis, the intellectual
>> >pattern of the MOQ is itself generated by a procession of value
>> >judgements, which leads us to thesis (2).
>
>I translate this as: First, DQ produces value judgments, then value
>judgments produce intellectual patterns. It's a two step process.
Paul: First of all I think you need to be careful of conflating 'value'
with 'value judgement'. As I understand it, individual value judgements are
a *result* of ongoing undefined value i.e., Dynamic Quality, combining with
existing static patterns(*). In the MOQ value judgements emerge as static
quality. As such, a collection of related value judgements constitutes a
static pattern. By a collection of related value judgements here I mean,
for example, the step-by-step building of a theory or argument or thesis
whereby you write something then ask, "Is this good? Does this sound right?
Does this fit with the rest of the theory? Is this clear? Is it
contradictory?" Each judgement will be influenced by what you know about
logic, grammar, rhetoric etc, but also by a Dynamic sense of value which
doesn't come from your static learning at all. Then you either keep what
you have written, or modify it or even throw it out completely. Then you
move on to the next bit and reflect again. The value judgements that have
come before contribute to the next and this dependent progression
constitutes the development and consistency of the overall intellectual
pattern.
In most experience the existing static patterns dominate the value judgement
and reinforce themselves but occasionally the Dynamic Quality dominates and
produces new value judgements which completely alter the existing patterns,
send them in a new unexpected direction or even create entirely new ones.
>So far so good. This goes along with DQ being pre-intellectual, pre-
>conceptual, pre-idea.
Paul: Well yes, i.e. value is pre-intellectual but value judgements aren't,
they are static.
>Paul:
> > > In this
>> >chapter we see a transition from the Dynamic Quality that *produces*
>> >intellectual value judgments to the explanations that are the *result*
>of
>> >those value judgments
>
>Now we learn that DQ produces more than value judgments. It produces
>INTELLECTUAL value judgments. The difference between plain old value
>judgments and intellectual value judgments isn't explained.
Paul: With respect to what I had written they are the same thing. However,
I think we could talk about social value judgements as well. I think
judgement implies an element of reflection or consideration so I think it
would be a stretch to talk about biological or inorganic value judgements.
Further, these
>intellectual value judgments produce not intellectual patterns but
>"explanations."
Paul: Is this really confusing to you? Let's just say that collections of
value judgements, as described above, are the basis of intellectual patterns
and some of these patterns are what we would call explanations.
>A bit further on, Paul introduces something new -- "ideas."
>
>Paul
>> >"The [first thesis of the] MOQ says that Quality comes first, which
>> >produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter..
>
>I thought Quality (DQ) produced value judgments, not ideas.
Paul: Actually, this is a quote from LILA'S CHILD which I thought was made
clearer by thinking of the two perspectives offered by the two theses. It
wasn't included as an aid to the study of the term 'value judgements' which
I thought was already understood.
But anyway, as described above, ongoing DQ produces individual intellectual
value judgements, a related collection of which is called a static
intellectual pattern. 'Ideas' here means the same thing as 'static
intellectual patterns' so it seems perfectly appropriate to say in short
that DQ produces ideas. However, I would add that as static patterns build
up from birth that it would be better to say that DQ and SQ combine to
produce ideas.
I thought
>ideas came later and that they are also known as intellectual patterns
>and/or explanations.
Paul: 'Ideas' here means the same thing as 'static intellectual patterns'
and some of these patterns are explanations.
>Finally, Paul writes:
>
>Paul
>> >Secondly, the term 'pre-intellectual', which is mostly used within the
>> >context of thesis (1), could be modified to 'pre-static' (i.e. the
>> >experience of indeterminate value prior to its contextualisation into
>any
>> >static patterns) when used within the context of thesis (2) so as not to
>> >erroneously relate Dynamic Quality solely to the intellectual level.
>
>Here we seem to be back to "DQ produces value judgments" although
>"indeterminate value" suggest no value judgments (quality decisions) have
>occurred. "Contextualization into any static patterns" seems to be a fancy
>way of saying intellectual patterns, but I'm not sure.
Paul: I think your confusion comes from conflating Dynamic 'value' with
static 'value judgements'.
'Contextualisation' here means the contribution of static patterns to one's
overall experience. Perhaps it is being used metaphorically with respect to
inorganic and biological patterns, in which case 'conditioned' may be a
better term.
>So from my point of view, rather than clarifying differences between ZMM
>and Lila, I'm more confused.
Paul: Well, I did say ignore it if it confuses you, although I'm glad you
didn't.
>Questions left hanging are:
>
>Do value judgments occur on a sliding scale from good to awful?
Paul: Yes.
>Are value judgments ideas or feelings?
Paul: Because of the implication of reflection and/or deliberation I would
limit value judgements to being social and intellectual. What do you think?
>Are ideas intellectual patterns?
Paul: Social and intellectual I would say, depending on the content. An
idea containing deliberate, systematic inference has an intellectual
component.
>Is there anything intellectual about value judgments?
Paul: Yes, when it is an intellectual value judgement!
>Do explanations always consist of intellectual patterns?
Paul: Not necessarily. I think social patterns, e.g. the ancient creation
myths, also provide explanations.
>Are intellectual patterns always "contextualized?" If so, how?
Paul: I think so, they are contextualised by the language, tradition,
paradigm and culture within which they are created.
>Does "contextualize" mean that intellectual patterns are always relative?
Paul: Yes, in the weak sense of 'dependent' i.e. there's no absolute
benchmark by which 'relative' has any teeth as an epistemic term.
>Can an intellectual pattern be Dynamic?
Paul: Strictly speaking, no. Intellectual patterns are static.
Regards
Paul
(*) An exception to this would be found with a newborn infant with no
social or intellectual patterns to contribute to value judgements. From the
perspective of thesis (2), perhaps we could talk about the social patterns
which might naturally build on the biological patterns, encouraged and
reinforced by the social patterns of the parents, as contributing to the
infant's value judgements. An interesting topic about which, parenting
aside, I am woefully uninformed.
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 : Mon Nov 21 2005 - 10:48:11 GMT