From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 22:31:52 GMT
Hi Platt
The entire cosmos is a singularity and a whole.
You cannot weigh or compare it to anything else
because there is no anything else. It is an absolute,
a unity. Measure/number is the activity of division and
seperation. The whole is divided into an static quality of 2. The sky above
the earth below, and the third that stands back and divides:
active DQ. And at some time I am a rich man sitting on
my big pile of coal and you are a poor man with no coal.
And then we stop valuing coal so highly. And so the dance of
differenciation and valuation goes on.
Numbers are great because they are so easy to agree on.
A simplification of complex experience. So tied to the division
of resoures. Let's divide the sweets 50/50, that's 8 each I think.
You did 4 hours work I did 2 but I'm more qualified than you
so I get 80%. 2 hydrogen atoms to one of oxygen a recipe for
making water. Measure, division, and the allocation of reward.
A communicable description for control, it is no good me telling
you that I used a bucket of oxygen and a bag of hydrogen to make
water, we agree a means of simple communication. Number equals
simplification and communicability and recordability to make successful
control of
materials and even people. Simple but not too simple to be successful.
But can all of reality be described by number. Clearly not. Number
forms a small part of the total words in a language. Many of the words
relate
to value, non quantitative value. How does activity relate to number?
What attracts the proton to the electron? The attraction of numbers?
Perhaps not.
Concepts always imply opposites. Ugly/beauty equality/inequality
fair/unfair. Without the ugly we would have no beauty. Without
opposites there would be nothing rather than something.
Such is our finite existence. The trick, I think, is to realise
that each pole has their uses. When you are not well you may wish
to cease having sexual attention. It is great that some people are taller
than others. It would be terrible for any one pole to be taken to the
extreme. It would be terrible to have no beauty in your life, or too little
money, or too much unfairness. On one day patriotism is good, on another
bad. Nationalism has had very great and very dark days. SOM has its
achievments
and evils. Numbers are great for counting, rubbish for art appreciation.
Any help?
regards
David M
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 9:19 PM
Subject: MD Measuring values
> Hi All,
>
> It has occurred to me from time to time that values are measured
> differently at different levels.
>
> I emphasize measurement because the intellectual level is mesmerized by
> the absoluteness of number, believing with almost religious fervor that in
> number (various froms of mathematics including probability) the secrets of
> the universe can be revealed and a Theory of Everything attained.
>
> This belief holds sway in the hard sciences of physics, chemistry and
> biology. Values at the inorganic and biological levels are expressed
> numerically or not at all. For instance, if the numerical values of the
> fundamental constants that govern the physical world, such as the strength
> of gravity or the charge of election, were just slightly different,
> neither the universe nor we would be here (called the 'anthropic
> principle'). Expressing values numerically at these lower levels has
> borne amazing fruit for all mankind. It has produced health and wealth
> beyond our forefather's imagining .
>
> Values at the social level are also expressed numerically in terms of
> money, the medium of exchange for goods and services. At this level,
> however, due to the idiosyncrasies of individuals, there are few if any
> fundamental constants such as found in the lower two levels. While the
> vast majority may vote with their pocketbooks to express the value of a
> certain product ( or simply vote for a certain politician) there are
> plenty of others who wouldn't give you a plug nickle for the same object
> (or person). Furthermore, few would subscribe to the idea that popularity
> alone is an accurate measure of value. But what else do we have to go by?
>
> This is where I begin to enter a fog, for at the intellectual level there
> are few, if any, numerical measurements of value I can put my finger on.
> Of course, I could argue that a best-selling book is, by popular approval,
> more intellectually worthy than one that sits on the booksellers shelves.
> But, as noted above, such an argument would be specious. By what measure
> can we say that the MOQ is a more worthy metaphysics than, say, that
> offered by Kant, or Hegel, or Nietzsche? Must we to accept the judgment of
> those who have spent a lifetime "studying" these old graybeards? (Frankly,
> I distrust a lot of the so-called and often self-appointed experts.).
>
> Pirsig offers several standards for determining value at the intellectual
> level-- "logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of
> explanation." Logical consistency lends itself to a mathematical-like
> analysis as expressed in symbolic logic. Agreement with experience may
> also be measured I suppose by counting the number of people who, in
> performing the same experiment, come up with the same result. But economy
> of explanation seems like a pure judgment call to me. Who is to say
> simpler is always better?
>
> But more than that. Take ideals like equality, fairness, justice, beauty.
> How in the world do we assign numerical values to such concepts? Where do
> those values ultimately lie and how are they to be measured, if at all?
>
> Any thoughts on these questions would be most appreciated. It seems the
> higher the level, the fuzzier values become.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 22:37:47 GMT