Re: [Spam] Re: MD immoral irony?????

From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Jun 30 2004 - 20:45:59 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD Notes on Beauty, Art and DQ"

    On 25 June 2004 12:48 AM Dan writes to Mark H

    Hi Mark
    I think you may be conflating biological and social patterns of value. The
    MOQ is divided into four levels plus Dynamic Quality. The inorganic and
    biological level patterns of value are objective. They can be seen and
    studied with scientific instruments. The social and intellectual level
    patterns of value are subjective. No instrument can detect the President. As
    you note, normally we think of racism as based on superficial and unfounded
    reasoning-- social patterns of value -- subjective, in other words. Yet
    there are differences between the races at the biological level as well as I
    noted in my reply to Gav.

    As for intelligence, I don't know where it comes from. I don't think anyone
    does. It's been apparent to me for some time that some people are more
    intelligent than others but I don't see it as a racial issue. Plus the fact
    that there are so many different kinds of intelligence...you open a whole
    can of wiggly worms when you start talking intelligence.

    Thank you for your comments.
     Dan

    Hi Dan, Mark H and all,

    I have previously visited objective levels of patterns in inorganic, organic
    levels, and subjective levels of patterns in social, intellectual levels
    from the point of view of mystical activity. I ponder 'objective
    '-instrument and 'subjective'-no instrument. I am confused. The existence
    of objective and subjective is real.

    The objective-instrument seems to be 'accompanied by', and subjective-no
    instrument seems to be 'unaccompanied'. In one sense, then, the
    subjective-no instrument is perceived only by unaccompanied mystical
    activity. The objective-instrument is perceived by accompanied mystical
    activity. Errors in perception occur by misapplying mystical activity.
    From this point of view the objective-instrument is more prone to error
    since more mystical activity is required. The objective is more prone to
    error than the subjective. This is not the accepted sense of objective,
    subjective.

    How can mystical activity be in error? Morality is between the inorganic,
    organic, social, intellectual levels. Error is attributing mystical
    activity to the wrong level. Mistaken identity! It happens all the time.
    And wars are fought! And people are killed! And racism is biological and
    social?

    In the accepted sense of certainty the objective-instrument is more certain.
    The instrument from a different level is mystically perceived simultaneously
    with the object. The veracity of the mystical activity in two levels is
    involved. The subjective-no instrument is less certain since the denial of
    the veracity of only one mystical experience is involved. This is the
    commonly accepted sense of objective, subjective.

    I am thinking that when Pirsig proposes this division he is using a MOQ
    interpretation of Subjective, Objective. IMO the MOQ interpretation is that
    the difference between subjective and objective is a difference in mystical
    activity. In the objective levels the measurement is proposed and there is
    a mystical acceptance of what upholds the measurement. In the subjective
    levels a degenerate mystical is accepted since the measurement itself is a
    mystical experience. IQ tests and Social Status are mystical measurements?

    IMO the origin of intelligence is a mystical experience of preferences or
    tendencies. I quote from Mark Maxwell's 'The Edge of Chaos'.

    "For complex system theorist Chris Langton, the idea of phase transition
    also describes the sweet spot of evolution, where an emerging balance
    between the solid and the gaseous obtains new behaviors. Systems out of this
    dynamic and fluid balance, on the other hand, "tend to stall in two ways.
    They either repeat patterns in a crystalline fashion, or else space out into
    white noise." [1] But within the sweet spot, one finds perpetual novelty in
    constant transition--a transition Langton calls the "edge of chaos." 1. 9

    A synopsis of complexity reads as follows:

    "Complexity theory is one of the most controversial areas of current
    scientific research. Developing out of chaos theory, complexity suggests
    that there are hidden tendencies in nature to select ordered states, even
    when statistically they are vastly outnumbered by chaotic possibilities:
    that there is a deep natural impulse towards order, counteracting the
    degenerative tendencies of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Like chaos,
    complexity is a multidisciplinary area of research and those involved
    include physicists, economists and biologists. This is a study of
    complexity."

    The sense of preference I take from Anthony McWatt's thesis 'An MOQ
    Textbook' on MOQ.org.

    4.6.1. KARL POPPER'S THEORY OF PROPENSITIES

    Popper makes a similar assertion about the ontological status of
    propensities as Pirsig's does with values. By propensity, Popper (1990,
    p.18) means the tendency for things to happen or behave in a way that is
    greater than chance; what he terms 'weighted possibilities'.
    Propensities, like Newtonian attractive forces, are invisible and, like
    them, they can act: they are actual, they are real.

    Richard Hazlewood(1997, p.3) points out the connection between Popper and
    Pirsig:

    "Both writers think that preference is a key term in understanding why the
    universe is as it is. Popper, when writing about the evolution of species,
    talks of 'preferences of organisms for certain possibilities' thus making
    them propensities and Pirsig writes 'what appears to be absolute cause is
    just a consistent pattern of preferences,' and he means by this, (is)
    preference for certain valued relationships which we can just as easily
    recognize as propensities."

    For both Pirsig and Popper, subjects and objects are perceived as being part
    of an event rather than the whole situation. Popper (1990, p.14) phrases it
    thus:

    "I have stressed that propensities should not be regarded as properties
    inherent in an object, such as a die or penny, but should be regarded as in
    a situation (of which, of course, the object is a part). I asserted that the
    situational aspect of the propensity theory was important, and decisively
    important for a realist interpretation of quantum theory".

    Joe Maurer

    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 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 20:55:50 BST