Re: MD novel/computer heirarchy

From: johnny moral (
Date: Sat Aug 02 2003 - 10:24:28 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "RE: MD Lila's Child"

    Hi Rick and all,

    > > Keep in mind that neither the man nor the woman reproduces, the marriage
    > > reproduces. I'm using the term in the literal sense, to mean a sexually
    > > active couple.
    >That's NOT the "literal sense" of the word marriage. You made up that
    >definition yourself. There are plenty of sexually active couples that
    >aren't married and plenty of married couples that aren't sexually active.
    >One need not have anything to do with the other... literally.

    I knew I could provoke a capitalized NOT out of you with that ;-) I do
    think the literal sense is sexually active couple. Jesus said the woman at
    the well was five-times married, and he was merely reminding people of
    ancient law, not making up a new understanding. Consumation is required,
    and is all it takes. Legal recognition is to codify society's moral
    feelings about a sexually active couple's permenant responsibility to stay
    faithful to each other. If they have never been sexually active, we don't
    care if they are married, we don't consider them fully married. But we've
    been down this road before...

    > > Wolves have social patterns, they describe how wolves interact most of
    > > time. And those kids, say there were ten of them, would have their own
    > > social patterns that describe their usual interactions.
    >This is why I don't like your definition of social patterns as just
    >'descriptions of interactions'. Because it means that there was never a
    >time when biology existed without society. It means that every single
    >biological thing has social patterns that describe its behavior, no matter
    >what that behavior is, how it's learned, or why it's carried out. I don't
    >think wolves have social patterns. I believe their behavior is entirely
    >genetically hard-wired.

    I would change what you dislike slightly and say that there was never a time
    when biology existed without social patterns (society has the connotations
    of modern human society, I would not use that word to describe an ant
    colony, or a dog pack). The behavior that is described is only how the
    individuals interact with each other, not biological behavior like how they
    eat or defecate or something. There doesn't have to be a "why" for a social
    pattern, the pattern just describes moral interactions. The pattern then
    becomes the why.

    > > In my state, murder is not defined.
    >Are you joking? Your state defines several types of murder (as do the
    >49) including murder in the 1st degree, murder 2nd degree (common law
    >murder), felony murder, manslaughter, manslaughter in the 2nd degree,
    >criminally negligent homicide, etc... all of which are defined by statute
    >and further delineated in case law.

    I mean, it never says what murder means, as in kklling somone . The text of
    the law just uses the word, leaving it up to the courts, to figure out what
    the word means, I suppose.

    > Where patterns vary is in the strength of their expectation.
    > > Some patterns, like gasoline burning when a match touches it, are
    > > strong, while other patterns, like wood burning when a match touches it,
    > > less strong. The stronger patterns override weaker patterns, but all
    > > patterns are moral patterns that try, for goodness sake, to realize
    > > themselves again.
    >So you're willing to distinguish between 'strong and weak patterns' but not
    >'high and low quality patterns'? What exactly would it be that makes one
    >pattern 'stronger' than another if not that the former is of higher

    That's just expressing how good you think a pattern is. OK, higher quality
    patterns are the ones that beat out other patterns more often.

    >Again, I think all this 'immoral inverse' stuff is just useless and
    >confusing. That some things are better than others is one of the very
    >foundations of the MoQ.

    I think it is one of the confused aspects of it. Better to who? Better to
    the pattern? TO the whole? If to the whole, then I agree, and that is why
    the pattern would probably continue.

    must sleep now. finish later...

    Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

    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 Aug 02 2003 - 10:25:44 BST