[MD] xacto's weak versus Lord Arioch's weak

[MarshaV]

oooops 

almost forgot 

yawn 


On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:52 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:18 AM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> Marsha,
>> 
>> Depends on what values we are discussing
>> if we are discussing inorganic and organic
>> you are correct if we are talking social intellectual
>> then no I would not agree.
>> 
>> Social and especially intellectual values are
>> personal judgements in my own opinion.
>> 
>> Those values that support inorganic and organic
>> good, would seem better than those that do not.
>> 
>> This good, is what makes explanations true,it makes 
>> those explanations that support inorganic, organic
>> and even social goods valueable.
>> 
>> -Ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:54:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks
>> 
>> 
>> Seems to me static patterns are quality (value) before whatever 
>> personal judgement one ascribes to them.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 17, 2010, at 11:48 AM, X Acto wrote:
>> 
>>> See, if one can not provide reasons for their beliefs
>>> they can not make a value distinction on which ones are better.
>>> 
>>> may as well be religous beliefs
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:23:10 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks
>>> 
>>> Marsha,
>>> Not really, just a matter of preference and the ability to persuade
>>> others. Convincing arguements tend to be based on reasonable
>>> explanations. What are your reasons for a belief?
>>> 
>>> But I don't think anyone can be convinced of anything unless
>>> they are first open to being convinced.Thus the art of rhetoric.
>>> 
>>> I just think there is a distinction between practicing this art well
>>> and practicing it poorly.
>>> 
>>> To reject reasons for beliefs, is in my opinion, practicing it poorly.
>>> 
>>> -Ron
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:02:56 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ron,
>>> 
>>> This somehow seems like the difference between static value (patterns) and 
>>> value judgements (good! - bad! or reasonable - irrational!).  I see the same 
>>> issue with Magnus.  Do you see value and value judgements as different, 
>>> or the same?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 17, 2010, at 10:49 AM, X Acto wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Platt]
>>>> Reason (SOM) expanded human understanding of levels 1 and 2, but in so doing  
>> 
>>>> left values in the dust and lost them there, going so far as to deny their 
>>>> existence. The MOQ takes humanity to a new promontory of understanding where 
>>>> one can see, if he will only open his eyes, a new reality of Quality (values) 
>> 
>>>> whose structure makes reason (SOM) subordinate. 
>>>> 
>>>> Ron:
>>>> SOM is not reason. Reason, or giving reasons for our beliefs instead of
>>>> blind acceptance, is the intellectual level. SOM dominates reason
>>>> because the explanations it provides yield a convincing arguement.
>>>> 
>>>> But your explanation above sounds more like it relies on blind acceptance.
>>>> Because it rejects reasons for justifications of belief. Per SOL/SIM
>>>> or whatever it's being called to avoid persecution by the moderator
>>>> which convieniantly rejects any reasons for it's beliefs.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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


 
___