Re: MD Event and level hierarchies opposite?

From: Paul Turner (
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 10:57:34 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD MOQ human development and the levels"

    Hi Johnny

    > Someone here broke down the hot stove quality
    > experience in chronological
    > order

    I believe it was my post that you are referring to. In
    it I described how the ‘hot stove’ example could be
    explained by the responses of each level in turn,
    starting with the inorganic patterns.

    In response to your post, I now see that the
    explanation of the ‘hot stove’ that I posted is based
    on a materialist assumption that matter, a body and a
    person exist prior to the experience. The MOQ says
    that this a high quality assumption and that, as in
    the MOQ evolutionary hierarchy, inorganic nature and
    organic nature has been around for millennia. The
    description sounds right to me because I harbour
    materialist assumptions.

    An idealist would say the intellectual patterns come
    first which include ideas of matter, thermodynamics,
    the pain and the person feeling the pain. It might say
    to the hypothetical ‘hot stove’ example, what stove?

    However, the MOQ says that this is also just an
    assumption and that actually experience comes first,
    before any patterns.

    What I have now realised is that the MOQ says both
    descriptions are valid and have merit, the question is
    not which one is right, but which is best?

    I spent a lot of time trying to see what the MOQ says
    is the real explanation, but it doesn’t.

    The evolutionary hierarchy itself is based on a
    materialist assumption about inorganic patterns of
    value existing prior to human thought. It is an
    assumption that has help explain empirical observation
    better than other explanations for a long time. The
    patterns are stable enough to consider the evolution
    theory to be ‘true’. But the MOQ does not say that it
    always has been and always will be. The good thing
    about patterns is that they can change.

    By refusing to define 'ultimate reality' (Dynamic
    Quality), the MOQ has a built in capability to use
    assumptions which provide the best explanations but
    the capacity to throw them out if (or probably when)
    empirical observation makes those assumptions
    untenable. Materialist assumptions are being
    continually eroded by quantum physics right now. In
    other words, the MOQ leaves itself open to Dynamic
    change. Materialism, idealism, empiricism and so on
    are all intellectual patterns of value arising from
    good assumptions which lead to high quality
    explanations within limits.

    This is probably obvious to you, it sort of was for
    me, but I kept making subconscious assumptions when
    posing questions. The MOQ says that when things don’t
    add up between experience and explanation, back up
    through your hierarchy of assumptions, perhaps not all
    the way, just far enough to see where the problem is.
    But if you back up far enough, you will end up with

    In Zen Buddhism a favoured symbol / character to
    describe the nature of zen is called ‘enso’. It is a
    circle brushed slightly differently every time it is
    drawn, but most importantly it is never joined up to
    form a closed circle. This, the sages say, is because
    if the circle is closed, it closes itself off from the
    ultimate nature of reality, change. I think that is a
    good analogy to the MOQ.

    I hope this clarifies the context of my post. Thanks
    for considering my post.

    Stay moral


    Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 10:59:03 BST