RE: MD the metaphysics of self-interest

From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 03:31:12 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "MD Coherence and Swords."

    Hello everyone

    From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
    Date: Wed Jul 21 2004 - 19:21:08 BST

    Paul:
    Agree, I think instinct is easily confused with Dynamic Quality and I'm
    not sure where to draw a line between the two.

    DM: Instinct implies same again, repetition, DQ gives us something new out
    of nothing, agree? I also agree quality has to be sensed, but can we expand
    upon our senses?

    Hi Paul and David

    I ran a google search on define: instinct just so we know we're on the same
    page. This is part of what I found:

    1. Automatic and innate, prescribing actions required for survival. Comment:
    Instincts are not actually a form of knowledge, although the effect is the
    same. Knowledge is the product of a mental process. Instincts bypass this
    entirely.

    2. Behaviours which do not need to be learned.

    3. All processes whose energies aren't under conscious control are
    instinctive.

    4. A complex and specific response by an organism to an environmental
    stimuli that is largely hereditary and unalterable, does not involve reason,
    and has as its goal the removal of a "somatic" (inst. note: physical,
    relating to the body) tension. also, Behavior that is mediated by reactions
    below the conscious level.

    I think the MOQ would both agree and disagree with definition #1. Instincts
    are a form of biological knowledge, that's why the effect is the same.
    Intellectual knowledge is a form of mental processes. Instincts do indeed
    bypass that entirely though. The MOQ would say these are different levels of
    value.

    I think the MOQ would say #2 might be better stated: behaviors that do not
    need to be intellectually learned.

    I think the MOQ would fiind #3 problematic. Instincts do not keep the atoms
    in our bodies from flying apart. Those are the inorganic level forces of
    which we are not consciously aware. I think the MOQ would say as well that
    we are rarely in conscious control of social situations yet social patterns
    are not instinctive either.

    The MOQ tells us that Dynamic Quality cannot be defined. But it can be said
    that: "every time you discover for the first time that something is better
    than something else, that is where Dynamic Quality exists." (Robert Pirsig's
    letter to Anthony McWatt, Feb. 23, 1998)

    I think the key word is "discover." I think the MOQ would say that there are
    high Quality intellectual discoveries as well as high Quality biological
    discoveries and these are not the same. They are both Dynamic processes
    however so I'm not sure there is a line to be drawn.

    I think definition #4 might have somthing to do with David's reply. I think
    part of RMP's point in using the hot stove analogy in LILA is that every
    person who sits on a hot stove will move. It is repeatable but it's a
    Dynamic discovery that it's better to move nevertheless. I don't see where a
    line can be drawn. Instinct would seem to be a biological pattern of value
    underlaying a Dynamic process, the fight for survival.

    As to David's question, I believe scientific instruments expand on our
    senses. Eyeglasses expand on sight. Hearing aids expand on sound.

    Thank you for your comments,

    Dan

    _________________________________________________________________
    Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to ‘Dig Yourself Out of Debt’ from MSN
    Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx

    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 : Tue Jul 27 2004 - 00:42:45 BST