[MD] Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo previously]
Thus, driving around a racetrack or forming a family unit are "social patterns",
the law of gravity and free speech are "intellectual patterns".

[Dan]
Can't they each be both? Patterns of value aren't "out there" like objects,
separate and apart. They are both continuous and distinct.

[Arlo]
Not sure what you mean. Is "driving around a racetrack" dependant on
intellectual patterns (physics, combustion, friction, etc. (not to mention
"freedom of assembly")), of course. I'm just trying to get at a differentiating
aspect between S/I patterns, not suggest they are unrelated.

[Dan]
Any belief would seem a manipulation of symbolic thought, an intellectual
pattern of value.

[Arlo]
This is what I was getting at. I see "religion" called a social pattern, and it
troubles me as being imprecise. There are, of course, identifiable social
patterns (the church, the papacy, etc.) that are the result of an intellectual
pattern (let me just call it "theology"). And seeing it this way I think brings
more clarity. The way I see it, religion versus science is not a social versus
intellectual war. It is the conflict of two competing intellectual patterns,
one that relies on (as Ian has suggested) social force and one that does not.
(I am still working this out, so again this is mostly talking outloud.)

[Dan]
Since free speech is one of the guarantees given to the people of the US by the
Constitution, it appears that the Amendments to the Constitution are based on
falsification. Ipso facto, to falsify free speech would require that the people
of the US collectively decide via the voting process that there is something
better and thereby pass an Amendment to the Constitution declaring it to be so.
Would you agree?

[Arlo]
I think so. I thought at one point "falsifiability" would lead into DQ somehow.
That is, if something is not falsifiable it is too static and has closed the
door to DQ. But I don't have that one really thought through.

[Dan]
The MOQ says that cultural patterns are both social and intellectual patterns of
value.

[Arlo]
Well, this was my point (I think). We can't say intellectual patterns are
"acultural", and that social patterns are "cultural". I was dismissing this as
a point of distinction.

[Dan]
Object of belief sounds suspiciously like Case's (Kant's) TITs.  sure, they may
feel good, and they may be fun to play around with, but they are in fact
objects of a duality. Belief is an idea. A thought.

[Arlo]
That was a poor choice of wording on my part. I think Ian has rephrased this in
a way that says what I intended. I'd say here a social pattern would be the
"belief (intentionality) in a pattern", while the intellectual pattern would be
"the (conceptual) pattern believed".

[Dan]
Isn't capitalism based on value, while science is value free?

[Arlo]
This gets back to the question is "capitalism" and the "free market" the same
thing? I say no. Others have argued yes. At any rate, the effects of SOMist
foundations on the market were well articulated in ZMM. 

[Arlo previously]
Science is a high-quality intellectual pattern because it preserves (in much the
same way as the "free market") an open door to DQ.

[Dan]
How?

[Arlo]
By having a built in way to adapt to new understandings, and toss out
invalidated ones.

[Dan]
How do genetically modified (GM) crops fit into the MOQ equation?

[Arlo gets on a small soapbox]
By enslaving the farming community to a agribusiness conglomerates. I'm sure you
mean something as seemingly benign as splicing B12 into rice, but genetic
modification goes much further than that. Crops are modified to not germinate,
forcing farmers to return year after year to agribusiness to buy seeds.