[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi A,

And I like your approach.  I find many on this forum are putting existing
legos together, matching colors as it were.  This results in a self-defined
system, as we have been discussing.  It's good to bring in other tools,
which is why I enjoy reading Ham's posts.  That "man is the measure of all
things" is, I believe, what Ham posted.  Indeed, it is justified to accept
that as a premise and see where it takes us.  My approach has been one to
question that premise itself, which I am sure may be annoying to Ham.  But
enough of the subjective hand wringing.

I could propose the biological paradigm in another way.  That is, that it
proposes change as a primary option (as would be termed adaptation by those
who like to use that tautological word).  Preservation falls under that
category, but is not the driving force.  As you say the phenomenon of
apoptosis, or cell self destruction does exist.  Indeed there are companies
that have targeted telomeres as the cause for aging and are trying to
promote self preservation along those lines.  But, I think such notions are
working against the biological imperative which brought it into existence.
 If this is the case, why then the need to self-preserve.  Fear of death is
indeed instinctual.  The biologists will say it is for reproductive
purposes.  This may be a misleading oversimplification.  If that were the
case, then reproduction would happen as soon as possible, say doubling every
twenty minutes.

It is possible that there are traits acquired during life that are
important, and that such traits take time.  This would bring in the field of
epigenetics which may be expressed in such philosophies such as Buddhism
which defines Karma.  There is also a Christian notion that what one does in
this world has bigger meaning, and is not just Darwinist.  The constant
quest for meaning may also be a fundamental biological imperative.  The ends
to which this serves is of course up for interpretation.  But we can at
least point to its existence.

I like Ham's notion of accepting and seeing where it leads.  However, being
the biochemist I am, I look for cause.  What divides the subject object?  I
would say that the social aspect, as you note, dominates the subjective
through the use of words.  The only purpose of such words are for
communication.  Such communication does indeed spread like a viral infection
(to use an analogy), and creates cohesion and battle.  So we can look at the
power of the word.  I am currently investigating (surfing) the known history
of words.  It is interesting that many years ago with the pharos, the word
was very powerful.  To name something was to own it, and leaders had all
sorts of words put in their tombs.  Now we may say that this is an
interesting primitive thing.  But such people were closer to the advent of
words, and may therefore have a better understanding of what they represent.
 And of course many old religions point to the word as something primary.
 Blah, Blah.

Do words create Value? Are they a measurement of some kind as the Qabalists
would have us believe.  Are we exchanging formulas along with the secret
handshakes?

Thanks Ham for trying to change the subject from Tea.  These things rise and
fall on their own accord, one can watch, participate, or ignore the passing
storm.  Grab an umbrella A, your going to need one.

Thanks for your thoughtful response A, I learn something every time.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> In response to Ham Priday's offshoot.
>
> ***
>
> This makes me think of one thing that struck me the other day (and I must
> admit that the concept of MoQ is still quite new to me). I had also, prior
> to reading Pirsig's books, tried to somehow overcome the Cartesian
> dichotomy. However, I had tried to do that from the outside of the
> Cartesian
> Subject, trying to turn the subject into an object. What Pirsig does, I
> think, is the opposite: turning all the Cartesian objects into subjects,
> starting from the inside of the Cartesian subject (that is, beginning with
> primary experience, rather than with abstractions from that experience).
> I find that approach useful on its own accord. You just disregard some
> aspects of experience, at first at least, then state some axioms, and then
> start deducing. And I would consider the method rational, as it seems to
> work fine.
>
> I have, also, formulated another kind of redefinition of MoQ in Cartesian
> terms, from what I presented in my former attempt. Now, mostly, concerning
> static patterns.
> If you don't consider the laws of physics, most often, every attempt to
> perform an act (or action) in the physical universe would be futile. Every
> act being in accordance with the laws of physics being "right" in the
> static
> physical moral. Biologic self-preservation is then necessary for an organic
> organism to stay intact. Thus, in the moral of biology, such acts that
> preserve the organism is to be considered "right". An old individual
> organism, for example, would exhaust all its dynamic potential, and thus it
> is moral to die of age, (and of course reproduce). It actually seems to be
> the case that the cells in man's body are programmed to kill themselves if
> not some external force does. That's why no single individual could live
> forever, that would be too static, and biologically immoral. So, in the
> name
> of self-preservation constant recreation is necessary among biological
> static patterns (thus giving them their dynamic component).
> The social system is also primarily concerned with self-preservation and in
> the social moral an act threatening the system would be immoral, while acts
> preserving it, or dynamically improving it, are to be considered "right".
> In
> that regard, it cares as much about individual human-beings as the
> biological body cares about individual cells. And as soon as the abstract
> social system is established, it creates its supremacy by necessity. It is,
> in fact, enlarging the amount and density of the population it controls,
> thus making the survival of the individuals dependent upon itself. Without
> the system today, for example, all the people living in urban areas would
> die from starvation within a year.
> But now, even though the social system dominates the physical and
> biological
> processes within its realm, it can't dominate the mind of the individuals
> included. Even though being able to control human actions by threat and
> force, it can't control what's going on inside individual minds. Of course,
> trying to do this, is what booth Huxley's "Brave new world" and Orwell's
> "1984" are about. In reality though, I think it would be impossible by the
> means used in these novels.
> So thus the order of supremacy among different categories of static
> patterns
> is explained in still another way.  Now, dynamic quality, as mentioned
> among
> biological patterns, would be the ability of constant improvability and
> reform.
>
> Considering intellectual patterns, I came to think about another "value",
> which isn't explained in ordinary epistemology. That's the concept of
> Ockham's Razor. Why should an more simple explanation somehow be better
> than
> a more complicated? Bertrand Russell admits, in "The problems of
> Philosophy", that no explanation exists. Considered from the point of MoQ
> however, it does. One could say that the amount of applicability and thus
> inherent dynamic potential, should be larger within a more simple, and thus
> general explanation, as compared to that of a more specific and
> complicated,
> because the latter could always be considered a special case of the former.
>
> Now, going back to values, numbers are also considered "values" and values
> is also dependent upon a scale (Pirsig seems to like sophists, and the
> sophists claimed the Homo Mensura - measure and scale being
> interdependent).
> So then, in MoQ, primary experience being the ultimate or absolute scale,
> that is Homo Mensura and then finds no need to really define that scale.
> Considering rationality, in the way I defined it in my first attempt, to be
> to act in a functional way, you could say that MoQ is just a rational
> method
> by which to determine and analyze purposes as measured by primary
> experience. In that primary experience there is both a will to preserve the
> self, that is static patterns, and a will to improve and transcend the
> self,
> that being dynamic patterns.
>
> Again, I don't know if this really contributes to anything. But I hope it
> does. I need also both think and actually "evaluate" the theses some more
> before I really know what I "believe".
>
> /A
> (Alexander Jarnroth)
>
> 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
>