Hi Steve
Steven Peterson wrote:
> 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.
It's not really the "level" that has a point of view, it's the patterns
of the level, but I guess that's obvious?
And to exemplify on Chris' answer, a biological pattern can only
evaluate other biological patterns. It's only because biological
patterns depends on (consists of) inorganic patterns, that a biological
*thing* can also evaluate inorganic patterns, such as gravity. I.e. the
level 1 patterns are evaluating the level 1 events, the level 2 patterns
are evaluating the level 2 events, etc.
>>>>>> 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?
Exactly, and how did Phaedrus solve it? We just mentioned this in the
"Value and the individual" thread today:
[Magnus]
Every single quality event involves two objects. From each object's
point of view, *it* is the subject valuing the other.
[Arlo]
Spot on. From ZMM, "Quality [can not] be independently related with
either the subject or the object but could be found only in the
relationship of the two with each other. It is the point at which
subject and object meet. ... It is the event at which the subject
becomes aware of the object. And because without objects there can be
no subject...because the objects create the subject's awareness of
himself...Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects
and objects is made possible. ... This means Quality is not just the
result of a collision between subject and object. The very existence
of subject and object themselves is deduced from the Quality event.
The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which are
then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality! " (Pirsig).
> 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.
I was looking ahead a little and considered your view on 12 as well. See
below.
>>>>>> 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.
This is what I meant with:
Somehow, magically, this self has suddenly appeared in your
reasoning. It almost sounds as if DQ (or rather "the ability to respond
to DQ) is identical with the S of SOM, or?
Regards,
Magnus
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/
