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.
Steve: Okay, but it just seems obvious and uninteresting to say that rocks don't have intellectual preferences. >>>>>>> 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. Steve: In Lila he abandons the Quality Event between a subject and an object in favor of his DQ and patterns of value model. We don't need to identify one thing as a subject and another as an object. Any thing we talk about is known in its thingness as a patterns of preferences. But back to my point about 7... >>>>>>> 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. Even if you say that level means a pattern that is part of the level this doesn't work. Rocks think that they are most moral? Plants and dogs think that they are most moral? 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/
