see below.
At 02:51 AM 1/29/2009, you wrote:
Greeting Andre,
I hope your move went well.
At 11:00 PM 1/28/2009, you wrote:
Marsha to Bodvar:
A pattern has a coming and a going. Its strength is based on its
relationship with other patterns. It has attributes and aggregates
which are also patterns. It is most probably an aggregate to another
pattern. It is in a constant state of change.
Please explain how static patterns of value are independent and
'exist very much in themselves'. Please do not use the SOL because
it has not been sanctioned by anyone.
Andre:
Hello Marsha, hope you do not mind me jumping in (knowing that Bodvar is
very capable of looking after himself) but it is an intriguing issue about
which I would like some clarification myself.
If Quality (experience) is the fundamental building block of the world and
it is accepted that the MoQ combines the four levels of patterns within an
evolutionary hierarchy I would suggest firstly that the four levels are
'expressions' of different evolutionary phases of Quality. The inorganic
being the 'oldest', the intellectual pattern the most 'recent'.
Yes, I think that is what RMP has stated. Yet, all patterns and the
four levels are themselves patterns. And your suggestion, "that the
four levels are 'expressions' of different evolutionary phases of
Quality." is also a pattern. And why I think the MOQ as a theory is
a spov that represents a better world-view.
'Though each level of patterns have emerged from the one below, each one
follows its own rules i.e. there are physical laws such as gravity
(inorganic), the laws of the jungle (biology), co-operation between animals
(society), and the ideas of freedom and rights (intellect). It is important
to note that the different laws of the four static levels often clash e.g.
adultery (a biological good for one's species) v. family stability (a social
good)'. ( McWatt, The Role of Evolution,Time and Order etc, 1999).
Yes, but still analogues upon analogues upon analogues.
I think the "exist very much in themselves' refers to each of the four
patterns 'following its own rules' and they have been given equal
ontological status, i.e. each level of existence (and its 'role/
function'), is properly recognised within the evolutionary framework called
the MoQ.
I wondered if Bo just meant that a particular pattern belonged only
in one level. I would agree with that. I certainly do agree that a
pattern exists independently from its own side.
Correction
The statement above should read: I certainly do NOT agree that a
pattern exists independently from its own side.
_____________
Disclaimer: To quote Sgt. Schultz from Stalag 13, "I know nothing!"
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/
