Hi Magnus, >>>>> 6. Static awareness. Each higher level evolved from the lower >>>>> level but has become a discrete level. From the point of view >>>>> of any level it is only possible to evaluate phenomena at that >>>>> level.
Steve: I still don't see what is interesting about this statement. It sounds tautological, but I think it is problematic because it implies that a level is a point of view. >>>>> 7. Static dominance. Because each lower level is unable to >>>>> evaluate the other levels, it considers itself to be the most >>>>> moral and strives to dominate the others. >>>> makes no sense. >>> Same as above. >> >> Steve: It's the same issue. Levels don't themselves evaluate >> anything, they are categories for types of patterns of value. I >> think all the personification of levels that goes on here is muddling >> the MOQ. Magnus: >We're in disagreement again, on both accounts. > >If the patterns of the different levels are not involved in the >"valuing", then what is doing it? Steve: This ammounts to the ZAMM koan, is the quality in the subject or the object? Magnus: >And if you categorically deny all >static patterns any notion of selfness, how can the individual you >mention below which are composed of those four static levels "respond to >DQ" as you put it. > >Somehow, magically, this self has suddenly appeared in your reasoning. >It almost sounds as if DQ is identical with the S of SOM, or? Steve: I can't see how this relates to whether a level can consider itself the most moral and try to dominate as if the levels are monsters fighting it out. Whether or not you want to talk about selfness of people is beside the point of the sugestion of the selfness of the levels implied in 7. >>>>> 12. Self. The self is undivided Quality, encompassing both >>>>> Dynamic and static patterns. As with Quality, the self is both >>>>> one and many. >>>> I don't think that this is what RMP means by the self. >>> I can agree that the last sentence is a bit cryptic, but regardless >>> of what RMP may or may not mean, what do *you* disagree with. >> >> Steve: I think that the MOQ says that an individual is composed of >> all four levels with the ability to respond to DQ. The patterns have >> Lila rather than Lila possessing patterns. Number 12 seems to make >> the self primary reality by equating it with Quality. > >I agree that an individual is composed of all four levels, and that it >has the ability to respond to DQ. But I'd also say that a thing of any >level has the ability to respond to DQ. But then again, we may have very >different notions of what DQ is. Steve: I think that "the ability to respond to DQ" needs to be added because a person is more than the sum of his static patterns. I agree with adding that tag line to any thing we want to talk about. Regards, Steve 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/
