[MD] The MOQ and religions.

[Marsha Valkyr]

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...