From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 18:46:32 BST
all humans have their humanity in common but every
face is different except twins to a very near extent.
Is a pattern of 2 universal, or 3? where does a repeat
become a universal?
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" < >
To: < >
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
> Mel,
>
> > - Scott said:
> > > 1. Are static patterns of value universals or particulars? Answer: >
> They
> > must be universals, as implied by the word "pattern". A
> > > particular, once it exists, cannot be changed. Only the rules for
> > > producing particulars can be changed, and so it is only as
> > > universals that there is value for the present and future (the
> > > particular does serve to exemplify the universal, however) .
> >
> > mel:
> > While many significant patterns may turn out to be universal,
> > I suspect that many patterns will be particular. For Example:
> > Physically: local conditions may influence the need for
> > certain patterns or diminish the presence of others.
> > Biologically: The structure of a species or an ecosystem
> > may 'require' unique patterns and not others
> > Culturally: As a culture is built of and builds patterns there
> > may be highly specific patterns.
> > Intellectually: As a very dynamic level?????? toss a coin,
> > but it seems that systems of thought are like mathematical
> > geometries, some are only valid as dependent conditions.
>
> I should have been clearer. By "universal" I mean a generality, that is, a
> universal property is something that is true for all the members of a set,
> while a particular property is only true for one member (or a few
members).
> Therefore, the word "pattern" implies universality. So only a particular
> culture may practice human sacrifice, but that practice is a universal for
> that culture, while an act of sacrificing someone is a particular.
>
> My point is that only the general practice of human sacrifice in that
> culture is a static pattern of value (for that culture). That Joe got
> sacrificed yesterday is not. The significance is that DQ can only work on
> the general practice. Once Joe got sacrificed, that cannot be changed.
Only
> the pattern can be. Likewise, the finches on one of the islands may evolve
> differently than on one of the other because of some environmental
pattern,
> and so the pattern of the finches is changed, but each finch does not
> change.
>
> >
> > DQ patterns may be more succeptible to particularity...
>
> Well, DQ by definition is not a pattern, though I think one could speak of
> patterns of DQ-instigated change.
>
> >
> > - Scott said:
> > > 2. DQ works with existing SQ to produce new SQ. (MOQ thesis).
> >
> > mel:
> > Seems right from this chair...
> > - Scott said:
> > > 3. The word for working with universals to produce new
> > > universals is intellect, as it is a matter of evaluating existing
> > > universals (concepts, rules) by imagining the consequences of
> > > choosing among possibilities, and making the choice.
> >
> > mel:
> > At the intellectual level this seems to fit, especially
> > considering synthesis, but what may be true for
> > new patterns in the lower evolutionary levels DQ
> > is probably not intellectual. Not sure there is exactly a
> > term...
>
> I'm arguing that the correct term for the creation of new static patterns
> at all levels is "intellect". It is true that we only experience our own
> intellect, but once one (if one) accepts that what DQ works on at all
> levels are patterns, and not particulars, then "intellect" is the right
> term for change at all levels. What prevents us from accepting this (I
> think) is that we have become used to the idea that change at all levels
is
> reducible to inorganic change. The MOQ takes a step at getting away from
> this, but doesn't address the means of change at higher levels. So what I
> am saying is that all static patterns are "ideational" (if that is a
word),
> by which I mean they are word-like or idea-like, and not particular-like.
>
> >
> > - Scott said:
> > > 4. Therefore, DQ is intellect-in-use, and all SQ are static
> > > intellectual patterns of value (which may be subdivided into
> > > inorganic, biological, social, and purely intellectual (mathematics, >
> for
> > example) static intellectual patterns of value. This does not
> > > imply that my thought of, say, plant growth is plant growth. It does
> > > suggest that my thought of plant growth is a pale reflection of the
> > > thought that grows plants).
> >
> > mel:
> > It seems that there is 'intellection' that is more
> > Static than Dynamic. Example: If I perform an
> > exercise of predicate calculus on a 300 year old
> > logical argument, that would be fairly Static.
> > Little new arises. However engaging in an MoQ
> > discussion on this thread may become far more
> > Dynamic...
>
> True, but that is a separate issue. Intellect can be repetitious or
> creative, but my claim that either way it applies at all levels. An egg
> will turn into a chicken the same way a zillion other eggs did, but it is
> still following a pattern to do so, and "following a pattern" is an act of
> intellect. It requires matching the particulars of an environment to a
> pattern to determine what to do.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> 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 -
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 Sep 08 2004 - 21:13:12 BST