From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2003 - 22:01:40 GMT
Dear Bo,
You wrote 24 Oct 2003 10:48:23 +0200:
'your input in the "dangerous" thread was at least an effort to forward the
MOQ view'
According to me there are more valid MoQ views than one. I don't like your
suggestion that you can judge whether someone's input conforms to 'the' MoQ
view or not. I take you to mean that you appreciated my input.
You also wrote:
'intellectual values (f.ex. free press, - speech, democracy, trial by jury
..etc.) are intellectual even if supported by the social pattern of
(submitting to) majority, while one lone person hating these ideas is
maintaining social values'
You seem to be talking about 'values' as 'things'.
I avoid 'values' (plural) and I avoid identification of individual 'ideas'
(e.g. 'the press should be free', 'speech should be free', 'society should
be democratic' and 'suspects should be tried by a jury') as 'values' in a
MoQ context. This usage of 'value' suggests too much subject-object thinking
(subjects ascribing 'value' to objects). Reifying these 'values' and
ascribing characteristics like 'intellectual' and 'social' to them makes it
even worse.
In my version of the MoQ 'value' is a noun that is not countable and that
only refers to characteristics of patterned experience: stability,
versatility, 'newness', pace of change and possibly harmony with higher
level patterns of experience. 'Intellectual', 'social', 'biological' and
'inorganic' are categories of patterns, not of 'values' for me. I categorize
them by the way in which their stability and versatility is maintained.
Not an 'idea' is 'intellectual', but its repeated expression. Not 'whatever
comes to mind' is 'intellectual', but 'mind' itself is a synonym for 'the
intellectual level' or for the sum total of intellectually patterned
experience. 'Mind' is not a given 'place' where diverse varieties of
'values' appear, but it is created by experiencing patterns that are
maintained by copying of reasons for behaviour. (As 'society' is created by
experiencing patterns that are maintained by copying of behaviour.)
You react on my
'intellectual patterns of value cannot replace social patterns of value (a
set of symbols cannot replace a set of behaviours)'
with
'"Behavior" (as such) Q-social value? Even an earthworm displays behavior -
biological behavior, while a human being displays all kinds of behavior.
Also that of intellect as "sets of symbols" I oppose'.
When I oppose 'sets of symbols' with 'sets of behaviours' I am only (for
sake of brevity) indicating one of the distinctions between intellectual
patterns of value and social patterns of value. That biological patterns of
value can also be described as 'sets of behaviour' is irrelevant when I am
only comparing intellectual and social patterns of value. It is the
repetition of the same set of symbols or the same set of behaviours that
makes them 'patterns of value' and it is the way in which this repetition is
maintained (copying among group members versus DNA/RNA-replication) that
distinguishes social sets of behaviours from biological ones.
A set of behaviours can also be symbolic. That's why rituals and language
are possible linking pins between the social and intellectual levels.
Feel free to spell out your version of the MoQ, but don't tell me that yours
(or mine) is THE MoQ, please.
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 : Mon Oct 27 2003 - 22:45:38 GMT