From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 19:04:37 GMT
Hi
The key to value in the MOQ is how I think
is how the SQ/DQ analysis that undermines SOM
is linked to a plausible story of cosmic evolution.
On the one hand we can value SQ structures that
have enabled more complex beings/existence to persist
but also the DQ that enables creativity and greater
expressive freedom and activity to occur. It is
a de-Germanised version of Nietzsche's superman, or
i.e. the Goethe-type of superman. But we no longer
have such heroes it seems. I can't help thinking that this
is because we are presently pushing a certain set of
possibilities to their extreme before we abandon them, i.e.
the possibilities of capitalism.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Pila" <pila@sympatico.ca>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:39 AM
Subject: MD stuck in the middle of life
> Steve,
>
> I do agree with you that science does not give any hint as to what should
be
> valued. Some people value X and others value Y. And they will argue all
day
> that their position is right and the other is wrong and never come to a
> conclusion. Science is of no aid.
>
> And so where are we? We can choose to place the pursuit of money as a goal
> or we can pursue thrills or dedicate ourselves to the service of others or
> be hedonists. Science does not have an opinion on these choices.
>
> And so we are left to choose whatever comes into our head. Is there a
> standard by which we can decide what path to go for? Does ZMM give a hint
or
> clue on this matter? If it did, I missed it.
>
> Nathan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:11 PM
> Subject: Re: MD life is an emergent property
>
>
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > > I play the market and have something called LEVEL II service. At times
I
> sit
> > > in awe watching as the information I am getting from the screen
updates
> > > itself. I can't believe that all of this is "just" or "merely" a
series
> of
> > > on and off switches. Or to give another example, I have trouble
> > > comprehending that a film that I can have an emotional reaction to,
> > > essentially is made of light and dark pixels that are put together in
an
> > > organized fashion to create an image on a flat surface.
> > >
> > > Or a novel is made of letter of the alphabet organized into sentences
> which
> > > are organized into paragraphs which in turn are organized into
chapters.
> At
> > > the end, the whole is much better and richer than the sum of the
parts.
> > > Letters can't make me feel angry or induce tears to come to my eyes.
Or
> can
> > > they?
> > >
> > > But the novel is an illusion, as is movies, as is the information on
the
> > > price of the stocks I follow. Our brain takes in the information from
a
> book
> > > or a theatre screen or a computer screen and makes sense out of it
> because
> > > it is hard wired to do so.
> >
> > Why say that they are illusions? I think you were right when you said
> that
> > the "whole is much better and richer than the sum of its parts." A
living
> > being for example is made of atoms just like rocks are but a living
being
> > is qualitatively different from atoms or rocks.
> >
> > > Does this conflict with your view of how things work in the universe?
> That
> > > is, how do you feel about the fact that the human brain gives meaning
to
> > > information?
> >
> > You suggest that the objective view shows us that all our loves and
hates
> > and joys and sorrows are illusions, and meanings and purposes are
> illusions
> > as well. I suggest that the objective view's failure to explain these
> > aspects of experience is a problem with the objective view. The
> scientific
> > lens will never show you values, since science values value-free
inquiry.
> > The problem isn't that values are illusions, it's that the lens of
science
> > filters them out.
> >
> > Remember that you are choosing this objective view over other possible
> ways
> > of thinking about your experience. You've made a value judgment in
> choosing
> > this objective view. You'd then have to conclude that there is no
reason
> to
> > look at the world objectively either since the value of doing so isn't
> > objective.
> >
> > You say our brains are hard-wired to make sense of information, but why
> make
> > sense out of information? You say you subscribe to Darwin's natural
> > selection or survival of the fittest, but why survive? Here SOM science
> > gets stuck, because we can't avoid talk of values. In a value-free
> > understanding of the universe these questions can't be answered, but
with
> a
> > "principle of betterness" things falls into place. Why make sense?
> Because
> > some explanations are better than others. Why survive? Because life
is
> > better than death.
> >
> > Objective science's goal of denying values is self-defeating. You can't
> > argue that viewing the world in terms of material objects and causes and
> > effects is worth doing without making a value judgment. I'm not
knocking
> > objective science. It's a great tool applied to the right kind of job,
> but
> > the value-free scientific lens simply can't give you the whole picture.
> On
> > the other hand, while a value-based Metaphysics of Quality includes
values
> > while it also contains the results of science as high or low quality
> > explanations based on a high quality method of inquiry.
> >
> > ZAMM doesn't suggest that we should deny the results of science. You
can
> > continue to enjoy NOVA. But we should consider scientific theories in
the
> > context of Quality so we can avoid the absurd position of denying the
> > existence of art, morals, and values and our own consciousness. In
> short,
> > once you make Pirsig's Copernican shift, it is subjects and objects
> (rather
> > than values) that are emergent properties, and when you do, the picture
> you
> > get holds together much better than the one you get from the lens of
> > objective science.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 19:07:05 GMT