David Buchanan " intellectual values are values in and of themselves. You don't arrive at them by some other species of value"
Adrie this statement will go to my son by e-mail David.This is what Pirsig is meaning to say,when he states " it arrived at me in a dynamical way" One day long time ago, a patent office clerck was kinda bored with reality as whe know it, and took a white sheet approach, an empty sheet approach on gravity,relativity,time,speed, etc, and wrote out the complete special relativity theory, and general relativity. none of the facts were derived from value's, none of the value's were derived from facts.At first , there was nothing, after this ,it was all there. It seems to be so that it arrived at him in a dynamical way. Until today, what he wrote down,then, is neatly in congruence with quantum physiks.Every day further evidence is found that reality can be derived from intellect,before reality itself became a factual entity. duvel tripel hop 9.5 °, best beer in the world 2013/4/27 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > Dan said: > ...Remember, ideas are patterns of value. Morals and quality are > synonymous in the MOQ. I doubt anyone here only keeps an eye on logical > consistency. But if a contributor consistently contradicts themselves it > points to a lack of quality. > > > David H replied: > I agree here. But why is there a lack of quality? Why does a contributor, > in your eyes, consistently contradict themselves? That's what I'm pointing > towards. Everyone has different values. So at some time or another - no > matter who you discuss anything with you will at some stage come upon a > disagreement. They value something which you don't which causes them to > deem their words with coherence, and you the opposite. ...If your values > are better than mine - why is that? Or are there other values which are > better? Why do you have the values which you do? Why do you deem them of > value? We live in a society today where people are almost frightened of > openly discussing their values and morals for fear of offending or > appearing insensitive. But the values/morals of the participants in a > discussion are not irrelevant and to be actively avoided (as is > traditionally thought) - but are the *most* important part of a > philosophical discussion. > > dmb says: > I can see that you're trying to hook up values and intellect, even saying > that values are the MOST important part of a philosophical discussion. And > yet there is still a SOMish separation implied in what you're saying. This > is contained in the questions you pose; everybody has different values, you > say, which causes us to disagree about what is and is not coherent. If your > values are better than mine, why is that? This implies that the meaning > of logical consistency differs from person to person, that the distinction > between coherence and incoherence is just a matter of one's personal > feelings and attitudes. It just doesn't work like that, David. It's not as > if each individual has their own private mythos or that each person is a > culture of one, an isolated individual with no real way to communicate with > another soul, excepts as two ships passing the night. That kind of > solipsistic alienation is what you get with SOM, wherein each individual > has her own way of representing > reality. But in the MOQ, we are composed of the static patterns of our > time and culture and language. Marsha is not from some other place or time. > She speaks English (sort of) and lives in the 21st century West, just like > everybody else here. > > But the thing is, as people keep saying to you repeatedly, intellectual > values are values in and of themselves. You don't arrive at them by way of > some other species of value. I mean, health is a biological good, fame and > fortune are social level values, while truth is what's good and right > intellectually. Again, in the MOQ intellectual quality is the highest form > of value, the most moral. This is protected in the MOQ's moral codes and > it's supposed to be protected in the Bill of Rights. This is supposed to be > an evolutionary advance over social level morality - what usually counts as > morality in the church, as well as the over the worship of fame and > fortune. Intellectual level morals are even opposed to these lower level in > very important ways. > > Long story short, intellect is not the enemy. SOM and amoral objectivity > is the enemy. And those are two very different things. > > And then there is the distinction between concepts and reality, the > difference between a knowable, definable metaphysical system and the > reality (the undefinable Quality) that it talks about. > > > > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > -- parser 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/md/archives.html
