Craig: > Bo, Ron, Platt, Arlo, et al., > The thread titled "Politics" is also considering the relationship between > the terms: 'value', 'quality' & 'moral'. > I suggest we reserve the term 'moral' for what is not low value/of low > quality. > Craig
We can't rally do that can we. The term moral is so infected with SOM thinking that we have a very hard time to get around that. Also the MOQ moral hierarchy is confused with social moral codes - codes who, while they of course are explainable by the MOQ they are only a fraction of what "morals" mean in the MOQ. The moral otherwise beeing talked about is not the same thing at all, most of the time quite obviously because it doesn't involve humans, but the word is the same, so we have a hard time talking about it. I think Arlo has made some good points though. What is "moral" within each level is 1) what is high static quality (for molecules to cooperate for example) and 2) following dynamic quality. No thinking is needed, no decisions needed, nothing. Only Quality. Chris (says good morning) 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/
