Hello everyone
Thank you to all the contributors... in my opinion the Quality of the posts
here has been very high.
Mary writes:
> pg 179: "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They
> originate out of society ... what a mind thinks is as dominated by social
> patterns as social patterns are dominated by biological patterns... Our
> intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived."
> Mary: This quote is one of the most disconcerting to me when combined
with
> "things that have no value do not exist". What a mind thinks is dominated
> by its Social level patterns; or, put another way, what we Value is
> dominated by Social level patterns. Is it then possible for an "actual"
> separate reality containing 'things' to exist right in front of our nose
> that we do not 'see' because we do not value it?
Glove:
Yes. This is what the MOQ is pointing out to us. This is also where quantum
theory leads. Static quality patterns of value are actualized reality
bounded "in" unactualized reality, Dynamic Quality. We actualize our reality
culturally, the logos, by drawing from unactualized mythos. Kind of like
plucking a string... the actualized fret is bounded "in" unactualized fret.
Harmony is acheived in quantum theory by focusing on actuality to the
exclusion of all else. The only value contained in the observation is
actuality.
This is where the MOQ expands on our point of view. But like the framework
of complementarity, the MOQ requires the learning of new sets of agreements
with reality which run counter to our classically held social values
prevalent at this time in our Western culture. We can no longer refer to an
independently existing reality apart from observation and unambiguous
communication about said reality. We can still deal with reality but we must
realize that all our dealings are culturally derived and not
representational of an independently existing reality as is classically
held.
In essence the MOQ takes up where the framework of complementarity leaves
off. By stating that Dynamic Quality is of higher value than static quality
the MOQ is incorporating religious mysticism into the framework of
complementarity and one of its biggest drawbacks... explaining where the
observation arises... becomes the "conceptually unknown". The MOQ is not a
religion... it is rather that which contains religion known as social level
patterns of value.
Mary:
> If a valueless tree
falls
> in a valueless forest does it make a valueless sound?
Glove:
That which is without value cannot be named, cannot be recognized. Is there
such a thing as non-experience? Non-value? No, "it" is not a thing as we
normally think of as thing. Therefore to make any statement concerning
non-experience is problematical. The same applies to Dynamic Quality. What
is it that brings us all here to discuss a metaphysics in the first place?
What is it that keeps some of us here while others drop out? What is it we
value? And is there a reason we value or do we simply value that which is of
value? If there is some reason that we value, agreements should be fairly
easy to come by here. They are not. Even the most erudite idea can be taken
in a completely different context and be made to show a contrary notion.
I liked your "first cause" explanation a great deal, Mary. I agree that it
is very applicable here. Principles are very interesting things and worthy
of further investigation.
Best wishes
glove
Best wishes
glove
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST