Hi Jorge, On Wednesday, February 06, 2008, at 09:37AM, "Jorge Goldfarb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Commenting on my Post on continuity of MOQ levels (as >opposed to discrete, not continuous) Steve writes: > >"I think this project of putting the levels on a >continuum is doomed from the start because the levels >to my thinking are categorical rather than scalar." > >Steve, if your thinking is correct and MOQ levels are >categorical, as opposed to scalar, why to call them >Levels in the first place?
Steve: These levels are categories that are arraned in the order in which they evolved. The levels are on a scale of time from which we infer "betterness." Jorge: > We grant to authors of fiction a free hand with words >but, when writing Philosophy, we require from them to >be careful in their choice of words. It seems to me >that using "levels" when meaning distinct categories >is an unfortunate choice; even more so if one talks >about "higher levels" dominating "lower levels". Steve: I think that many people take the idea of "levels" too far. Rather than use the levels to refer to types of patterns of value arranged in an evolutionary hierarchy, they want to talk about a given person as "on the social level" or "on the intellectual level" which to me is to misunderstand what the levels are. "Higher levels dominating lower levels" is problematic as well as you suggest. Each level is it's own moral universe, but a given pattern on one level can either undermine or support patterns on other levels. Regards, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
