[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation - corrected

[MarshaV]

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!"