Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: Steve Peterson (
Date: Sun Oct 26 2003 - 16:01:26 GMT

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the Nazi, Part III"

    Hi Andy,
    > Andy:
    >I am unclear as to why social values cannot
    > be replaced, however. Probably, because I am using values in a broader sense
    > than "value" is implied within the MOQ.

    If by "why social values can't be replaced" you mean that you wonder why an
    intellectual pattern can't become a social pattern then I don' think the
    issue is your use of "value" but rather understanding "types of patterns of
    value". It can be confusing because many posters are referring to "types of
    people" (DMB) or "the value of ____ "(Bo) when referring to the static
    levels rather than types of patterns of value.

    It's important to think in terms of patterns to understand what 'static'
    means in the MOQ. It's not about a lack of movement but rather a pattern
    that persists over time.

    >Social value in the MOQ comes first,
    > right? Whereas by social values (when I used this term) I meant certain
    > ideas, patterns, lifestyles, etc. that particular societies value.

    What you've just defined would be examples supporting Pirsig's definition of
    the term 'culture' which he defines as a collection of social and
    intellectual patterns.

    Social value is not 'that which a society values'. I think of it as the
    type of value that holds a society together (as inorganic value holds
    'stuff' together, biological value maintains life and intellectual value
    holds ideas together). We recognize this type of static quality in patterns
    of behavior in social interactions (e.g. social roles like father, mother,
    employer, employee, politician, citizen, and patterns of social roles like
    families and companies and government institutions) that are copied from one
    person to another selected for imitation on the basis of undefined quality.

    Likewise, Intellectual quality is not to be defined as 'that which an
    intellectual values' (note that defining that way would imply a
    subject/object dichotomy) though an intellectual will value intellectual
    quality. We recognize intellectual value in the patterns of thought or
    patterns of symbolic manipulation that are experienced as high or low
    quality rationales, explanations of experience, or motivation for behavior.

    Though 'that which an intellectual values' could become 'that which a
    society values', a pattern of manipulation of symbols can't become a pattern
    of social interaction. However, patterns of symbolic manipulation (ideas,
    explanations, rationales) can influence patterns of social interaction.

    Does that some sense, Andy?


    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 : Sun Oct 26 2003 - 16:03:15 GMT