RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sun Feb 22 2004 - 01:00:45 GMT

  • Next message: Matthew Poot: "Re: Re: MD An atheistic system?"

    Bo, Paul and y'all:

    Bo said:
    The dynamic/static relationship is a great puzzle, I am not entirely
    sure how to interpret it.

    dmb says:
    Paul provided a very good answer already. I only want to add to it. I think
    we can see this "process of valuation" going on at both the social and
    intellectual levels in the following quote...

    "Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric.
    Rhetoric is in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient Greece.
    That is so historically, and that is so by any application of common
    sense. The poetry and the myths are the response of a prehistoric people
    to the universe around them made on the basis of Quality. It is Quality,
    not dialectic, which is the generator of everything we know." [ZMMp.391]

    dmb continues:
    You've seen it many times, but its likely to take on a new meaning when seen
    in this particular context. Notice that poetry and myth as well as logic and
    everything we know is made on the basis of Quality. This "process of
    valuation" occurs at the inorganic level, as in the preferences of
    particles, at the biological level, as in Lila's sexual selection process,
    at the social level, as in the poetry and myths made on the basis of
    quality, and at the intellectual level, as in the mysterious hypothesis
    creations of Ponciare. Quality is "the generator of everything we know".
    Quality is dynamic and everything we know is static. That's how they are

    Bo said:
    Biology is the level that grew out of the inorganic and "devours" it for
    own purpose and does nothing BUT pick and chose (judge) among inorganic
    patterns. The amoeba (in ZMM) judged the acid drop to be bad quality and
    shied away.

    dmb says:
    Again, I liked Paul's answer, but I have a different one. We'd all agree
    that each level grows out of the one that came before, but you seem to be
    combining this with the principle of the moral codes. You seem to be saying
    that this defines a pattern's range of judgement, so that biology "does
    nothing but pick and choose among inorganic patterns". (And you've been more
    expansive and explicit about this elsewhere.) This same idea, that patterns
    can only judge the ones below, leads you to conclude that we need something
    more, something higher with which to judge intellect. And since the MOQ
    passes many judgements upon the intellect, it must be something more and
    something higher. Hence we have SOLAQI and the imaginary 5th level. But this
    is a misconception, not only can patterns make judgements within their own
    level, as in sexual selection, there is also Paul's FAMOUS dynamic valuation
    process. ;-) The good news is that if you eliminate this misconception, the
    problem disappears and there's no need for a solution, no need for SOLAQI.

    Bo said:
    "Matter" does not correspond to MOQ's "Inorganic Value" other than in
    the most superficial way.

    Paul replied:
    I think "static inorganic patterns of value" corresponds to matter
    precisely, in the sense that it answers the same question that produced
    "matter" and explains the same data that a concept of matter explains.

    dmb says:
    Exactly. Phyicists study inorganic patterns of value. The MOQ adds something
    to the intellect. But it doesn't toss out scientific data or the world of
    common sense. It builds on the progress of the past and is big enough to
    hold SOM and more. It can easily translate SOM's terms and concepts into its
    own language and include it in a larger vision. How could it be otherwise?

    "There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can
    perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in
    part, the result of our history and current patterns of values. Or, using
    another analogy, saying that a MOQ is false and a SOM is true is like saying
    that rectangular coordinates are true and plar coordinates are false. ...But
    both are simply intellectual pattern for interpreting reality and one can
    only say that in some circumstances recangular coordinates provide a better,
    simpler interpretation. The MOQ provides a better set of coordinates with
    which to interpret the world than does SOM because it is more inclusive. It
    explains more of the world and it explains it better. The MOQ can explain
    SOM beautifully but... SOM can't explain values worth a damn." LILA pg 100


    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 Feb 22 2004 - 01:05:02 GMT