MD Burden of Proof

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 18:50:57 GMT

  • Next message: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com: "Re: MD Squonk wrote a Review"

    Rick and Platt and All,

    Let's strip the subject out of that recent discussion and, if we can, get to
    the bottom of the MoQ "burden of proof" issue in general.

    My contention is that a pattern is always moral, and not following the
    pattern is always immoral. Patterns and morality change through DQ, which
    is not in the service of ideology or politics and doesn't have a utopian
    goal, but is in the service of existing morality and patterns themselves -
    it is what propogates patterns forward and works out their interactions, it
    is the love that sustains existence. The interactions of patterns is
    computed by DQ and the result of this computation becomes reality.

    Sometimes the interactions of patterns cause DQ to break a pattern, so
    sometimes DQ creates an immoral, unexpected result. DQ usually creates
    moral results, as usually patterns are continued in their expected way
    unless they come in contact with another stronger pattern. If DQ has to
    break a pattern more often than it propagates it, then we start to not
    expect the old pattern anymore and the new pattern becomes what is moral or
    expected. Being moral is itself the incentive for the pattern to be
    propogated, the more it is considered moral, the more it is expected, and
    the harder it is for another pattern to break it.

    So, I take the position that to change a pattern, the patterns which change
    it have to be stronger, have to have greater moral self-justification, which
    means be more expected to continue than the other pattern it is in conflict
    with. Politics and intellectual principles and claims of truth can be
    expected to contribute to a pattern gaining strength as a pattern, but
    should not be confused with the being the arbiter itself. Unless they are
    truly a stronger pattern, they don't have any justification to change
    another pattern. And at that point there won't be any argument, the change
    will "just" happen. So if there is an argument, if it takes force, it
    shouldn't change.

    A pattern should continue, by definition. It is axiomatic that expected
    behavior is expected behavior, that we should do what we should do, and that
    we are supposed to do what we are supposed to do. These things are as true
    as A equals A.

    Johnny

    _________________________________________________________________
    Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
    http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

    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 Mar 20 2003 - 18:51:35 GMT