From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 05:10:30 GMT
Hi Platt,
I found Pauls post to be confusing too, so I ignored it as he suggested...
However, here's answers to your questions..
> Questions left hanging are:
>
> Do value judgments occur on a sliding scale from good to awful?
Yes.
> Are value judgments ideas or feelings?
Why can't they be both?
> Are ideas intellectual patterns?
Yes.
> Is there anything intellectual about value judgments?
If you manipulate those judgements independently of the patterns they represent, then voila you have an intellectual value judgement.
> Do explanations always consist of intellectual patterns?
An explanation defined as a description of value. Then no. If you scream out during intercourse, or comment on Mrs Duvet's lovely scones then these are biological and social 'explanations'
respectively. However, for intellectual clarity I think it's best to keep the term 'explanation' at the intellectual level.
> Are intellectual patterns always "contextualized?" If so, how?
Definition.
Contextualize: "To place (a word or idea, for example) in a particular context."
To my understanding there are two ways to read this definition. The first implys that there is intention with the contextualization taking place. For clarity an example of a person contextualizing
in this manner might be a philosophologist, musicologist or the kind of ilk who dosen't pay much attention to Dynamic Quality. Read in this way, there are people who do not 'contextualize',
Philsophers, musicians and the kind of ilk who 'blend with Dynamic Quality'. But on the other hand, at a more fundamental, less intentional level, contextualized could be taken as 'patternized'. In
this case intellectual patterns are always contextualized.
> Does "contextualize" mean that intellectual patterns are always relative?
With the two ways of reading the term 'contextualized', there's two answers. In the first example of the philosopholigists and such, patterns contextualized with intention are always relative to he
patterns they have before them. Read at the more fundamental level, contextualized patterns are not 'relative' patterns. Of course their relationships can be compared but this is a separate act of
its own and not an innate characteristic of all patterns. (Refer my last post to Rebecca).
> Can an intellectual pattern be Dynamic?
Yes. The MOQ was pretty Dynamic, no?
-David
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 Nov 22 2005 - 05:46:18 GMT