Dear John,
I mean, none of this is anything I posted, but I agree with you that
everything is relative, so maybe it's distantly relative to something I
once said.
Marsha
On Dec 24, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Marsha Valkyr wrote:
>
> Dear John (that was fun),
>
> I think this post should exist sans Marsha.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 24, 2009, at 1:49 PM, John Carl wrote:
>
>> Steve, Marsha mentioned:
>>
>> I don't ascribe to the view that you attribute to me. I don't see "code of
>> art" as a level or emerging level. It is instead the particular patterning
>> "thing" and the levels are the static patterns left in its wake. That is,
>> intellectual patterns such as philosophical systems, are mediated and
>> created by an intellect. The intellectual patterns (metaphysics) of the 4th
>> level are mediated by intellect. Seems obvious, eh? But that's how I
>> ascribe intellect as the code of art and static metaphysical systems as
>> making up the content of the 4th level.
>>
>> Working down the chain, and just off the top of my head, the code of art
>> for society is emotion, the code of art for biology is the law known as
>> "survival of the fittest" and the code of art for the inorganic are the
>> mechanistic laws of cause and effect.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, for patterns to evolve they have to orginate as
>>> unpatterned responses to dynamic quality which later become habits or
>>> patterned behaviors.
>>
>>
>> I don't know what is meant by "unpatterned responses". In fact, the term
>> "un"patterned gives me gas. It sounds suspiciously like phlogoston to me,
>> something postulated in order to fit a pre-formed view, with no empirical
>> evidence supporting it whatsoever. If you said, "pre-patterned" with the
>> implication that the human valuing agent (nod to Ham) is going to be doing
>> some patterning in the near future, I'd have an idea what you meant. But as
>> it is.....
>>
>>
>> But either way you want to think of it, the "code of art" is equated
>>> with Dynamic morality and is about dynamic-static tension in general
>>> rather than a new or existing specific type of static pattern of
>>> value.
>>>
>>>
>> yeah, that's the way I want to think of it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of biological
>>> life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that
>>> established the supremacy of the social order over biological
>>> life-conventional morals-proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery,
>>> theft and the like.
>>
>>
>> Note to Marsha:
>>
>> Dogs and humans steal. Lizards and amoeba do not. Social morality is
>> evident in non-human mammals. If you don't see that, you're trying to get
>> your puzzle pieces to fit by hammering on them hard to fit the picture you
>> want to see, not the one that is there.
>>
>> But I guess that's ok since everything is only relative. :)
>>
>>
>> John the bah-humbuggerer
>> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
_______________________________________________________________________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...
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/
