Hello, first time caller, long time listener. Anyway, the recent post from
Mistah Dillon arose a slight irk in my belly. One the whole, it was good,
but a couple of points fuzzled me:
>STATIC PATTERNS can said to be in simplest terms as an arrangement of data
>having an underlying order or form. This may be in the form of language,
>symbols, visuals, sound , sensations, etc - in other words the FORM of
>static patterns is primarily SENSORY - that is related to the senses...
So far so good. Static values are patterns, things that are sensed similary
over time until they are assigned a set form from our minds. Cool.
>STATIC PATTERNS OF VALUE are thus static patterns having a value assigned
>to them...
Here, I see a separation that I see people fall into sometimes (actually,
mostly myself) when dealing with Value. "Static Patterns" and "Static
Patterns of Value" are shown as different when, from my grasping, they're
not. Static patterns *are* value. EVERYTHING'S value. Not necessarily in
the sense where we individually cherish every little quark, but that to
exist to our consciousness, to be "sensed", it must be valued. It's a
psychological fact, however factual psychology is, that our attention is a
screened-out view of what we sense. We sense millions of things, but our
discriminating brain picks our what it likes to attend to. Nowhere is this
more true than in our minds, for as was pointed out earlier, the MOQ is an
intellectual construct. It's all in our heads. And, for the fickle
existence of our mental abstractions, we must value them or else we can
easily forget about them. If you're paying atention to something else and
you walk into a tree, then it's not so easy to forget it. But, when you're
pondering a math problem, looking for the truth, and a logical wall arises,
you can walk through it, so concentrated are you on the problem's "value".
What I'm getting at is that there's no separation twixt between static
patterns and static patterns of value(Hello, Pattern. Hello, Value. Good
night, Pattern. Good night, Value); they're one and the same, like "a Milky
Way" and "Milky Ways of chocolate and caramel". To assume so means putting
a SOMish crack in the MOQ. Value and experience are no different, either.
Separating can be pragmatic, but I always do so with extreme caution.
And lastly, about biological values being the most fundamental and
hardest to transcend, that's kind of silly. It's Inorganic Values! =`)
Without "non-living" vitamins, atoms, and whatnot, biology wouldn't be. As
for transcendence, I can tell myself not to eat that Milky Way, but I'll be
damned if I can bring the candy bar to absolute zero temperature. Bones can
broken, but the laws of physics can't. Even our advances past certain laws
(i.e. gravity via rockets, skyscrapers, flying monkeys) all works within
physics by using other laws (i.e. momentum to counteract gravity, leverage
and structural integrity to keep the skyscraper up, shooting electrons to
watch the Wizard of Oz, etc.) Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have
myself a Milky Way.
-Ricky Gonzalez
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
