Thanks, Mark, and Hi Marsha, Steve, and dmb --
On Sat, 7/16/11 at 11:49AM, Mark "118" [email protected] wrote:
Quality is neither a property of the subject or the object. It is what "lies between". I have spent many posts explaining this but will try again. Objects (or subjects) do not contain Quality; they express it. What we note about an object is its expression. We cannot know the fundamental nature of an object, only those qualities which are imparted by it. I realize that this "in between" causes confusion, and Ham and I went back and forth on it. As you know, the subject/object divide does not work with MoQ. As I understand it, some were barred from this forum for attempting to do just that. So, let me think of an analogy. When we are on a boat on the ocean. We do not feel the ocean, what we feel is the expression of the ocean through waves. The waves are a Quality of the ocean. We go up and down in rhythm to that Quality. It is not a far step to see that this is the same as our relation to objects, or the cosmos in general.
Mark should be commended for his efforts to make Quality (or what I would call Value) more understandable, and his ocean waves analogy is an appropriate one. I also agree that the term "patterns" does not do justice to this concept. Neither does "indefinable DQ".
I was trying to think of a better word than "differentiation" for the state of existence in which we all participate. The best I could come up with was "contrapositionality", which relates to antithesis as well as contrariety. Webster's defines contraposition as "the relationship between two propositions when the subject and predicate of one are respectively the negation of the predicate and subject of the other." What does this mean?
Look at it this way: Value (Quality) only exists when it is realized. Realized Value must have a Knower. That Knower is the sensible subject and the actualized object (Being) is a valuistic expression of the knower's sensibility. The "proposition" that we need to confront here is Oneness. What we are really asking is: How does Oneness make its Value known? The answer is that it creates a Knower (i.e., sensible agent) in contraposition to itself.
If we imagine Sensible Oneness (Essence) as the Being of Value, it becomes clear that, in order for its value to be realized, Being and Knowing must be contraposed. The relation of Knowing to Being -- what Mark calls "what lies between" -- is Value. To get to this actualized state of differentiation, the subject and predicate ("I AM") of Oneness are negated to create a new proposition; namely, the subject and predicate "I KNOW" and "THIS IS". In between is the Value sensed by the agent who experiences "this is" autonomously and deals with it freely as he will.
Does this paradigm make my ontogeny any more comprehensible? If so, how much of it contradicts the MoQ thesis? I'll leave these questions up to you folks.
Valuistically speaking, Ham 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
