[MD] ***a new begining***

[Ian Glendinning]

Nice one Ron.

This realization - of the fit of the moral levels view, with just
about everything I could think of - was behind this quote of mine
(which appears on Ant's site)
"I find Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality and his Dynamical layers of
values the closest thing to my own real-world experience ... [of
everything]"
(Taken from my 2005 paper.)

You've been buzzing recently, it's clear to see.
It's a great release to be able to move on from some of the more
"subtle" philosophical debates that (will) continue anyway.

I'd like to give you some suggestions for where to follow-up where
science does and doesn't get this at the quantum physics level.
This is a good a place to start as any.
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1831
In your own time ;-)

Regards
Ian

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:12 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> David Buchanan really put his finger on it when he clarified, with adequate support
> and several examples of why the MoQ's intellectual level is a MORAL level. I may
> even go as far as to say it is THE moral level given that MoQ is a static intellectual
> pattern that posits that intellectual values are moral values and the source of all
> static pattens.
> I exercised it last evening, and it worked in every scenario. Case study after
> case study it explained the struggle and the reasons for them. Where it got weird
> was in the explanation of the inorganic and the organic patterns of value which
> were formally explained by scientific objectivism and, within that context, made
> up all of reality, which excluded social and intellectual patterns of value. Verifying
> the Pragmatic usage of the explanation on these levels of value proved more
> difficult for a laymen such as myself. I could see that Quantum physics,
> Einsteins relativity theories, Bohr complementarity, set theory and the like,
> coincided and rested comfortably with it, this included the historical perspective
> while the intellectual values covered the empirical epistemological view.
>
> In other words all was explained, accurately. No double meaning and contradictions.
> no two types of MoQ DQ they were specified by where they fell in the levels of
> explanation.
>
>
> I got excited, seemed like the model was out of the box, put together correctly
> and worked like the intructions said it would work. The test ride proved it to me.
> It  performed flawlessly.
>
>
>
> 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/
>