From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Fri Nov 08 2002 - 22:15:39 GMT
Davor says:
> I don't know, I think you are wrong, I am still not really getting what you
> are saying. Some random questions are arising, I suspect you have already
> explained them but you have to kick the door a few more times, hope you
> don't mind?
Steve says:
Wrong on which point? I guess there are two.
(I.) I started by critiquing the idea of classifying patterns of values as
being particular types of things as differentiated by the four levels. Do
you disagree on that point?
(II.) Or the second point? Because I didn't want to merely reject the types
of patterns without offering an alternative understanding, I defended a
"types of awareness/ways of valuing" interpretation of the levels.
I can accept the moq's description of reality as patterns of Value. I can
accept it's description of four types of Value but I can't accept four types
of patterns of value.
To disagree with the first point (I.), I think one would have to answer my
taxonomy questions: What type of pattern is a person? What type of pattern
is a tree? What type of pattern is Shakespeare's Hamlet? What type of
pattern is the earth? What type of pattern is the universe? And the answer
must be either inorganic, biological, social, or intellectual. But only one
of them for each.
My answer is that all of them are patterns of Value made up of all four
types of Value. One can be aware of them in each of the four levels. One
can value them in each of the four ways.
Davor says:
> I assume you do not want to make any distinctions in spov, or do you? Are
> you saying that MOQ is actually Epistemology of Quality?
Steve:
I'm guessing spov = static patterns of value?
I'm not tying to introduce new levels or rename old ones if that's what you
mean.
I not sure what you mean on epistemology thing. (Can you dumb it down for
me?)
Davor:
>I think you are
> trying to define MOQ in SOM terms, you have a tendency to solipsism, (ways
> of valueing,) or am I wrong here? You assume that levels are actually
> defined by perception, and the pattern depends on the spectacles you have
> on, whether a social, a biological or intellectual? You do not believe in
> the distinctness of the levels?
Steve:
Calling someone's ideas SOM thinking seems to be the catch all critique, but
I don't buy it here. The types of patterns means of classifying claims to
be objective. Ways of valuing are relative. I think it's SOM thinking to
confuse the relative with the absolute.
I'm not being solipsistic. I recognize that other people's experiences are
different than mine. And every encounter of a subject and an object is
defined by Quality, though the perception of Quality that a particular
subject experiences is relative to the subject.
Why do different cultures have different moral codes?
These moral codes are cultural constructs. They are relative to a
particular society and to how it has developed a way to balance the
different ways of valuing. But is there no absolute right and wrong? The
answer comes from the same place as that of the million dollar question that
motivated ZAMM:
Why is it that different people have different experiences of Quality when
encountering the same pattern of value?
Static patterns are relative.
The patter of value of a rock or a painting that I encounter is different
than the pattern of value that another experiences in a similar encounter.
A person's experience of Quality in her encounter of a painting (for example
of a pattern value) will depend on her previous experiences.
But there is an Absolute in the moq but with a profound innovation. This
Absolute is dynamic rather than static.
A static good is a balance between the four valuations where the experiences
of Quality all line up in a positive way.
Dynamic good is freedom from static patterns.
Culture is shared valuation based on static patterns that result in similar
experiences of Quality.
I digress, and open myself up to criticism for saying too much. (By the law
of averages, the more I say the more likely it is that I will say something
wrong.) But I wanted to demonstrate that this way of understanding does not
diminish the moq in any way. I think it could enhance clarity by ending
debates about types of patterns.
Davor:
> Do you believe there are different kinds of awareness on the different
> levels? Must be because otherwise there would be only ONE way to value, as
> consciousness is limited to the intellectual level.
Steve:
I don't agree that awareness is limited to one type. I am proposing that
there are at least four different types of awareness.
Davor:
>The MOQ imo is not about
> ideas about.....but about...... We are not aware ON the levels but are aware
> OF the levels as intellectuals. Having biological quality means
> NON-awareness of biological drifts , having social quality means
> NON-awareness of the social forces, intellectual quality however means
> awareness as realising the relation to society and biology, we are not aware
> of intellect itself just as we are not aware of having biological or social
> quality when basing decisions on unconsious pre-conditional biological or
> social forces. Lila has biological quality, that means she is not aware of
> it, Rigel has social quality that means he is not aware of it etc...
Steve:
I probably read this from a different perspective from which it was written.
To me this is an interesting way of thinking about how one type of awareness
can dominate overall consciousness. I reinterpret it as Rigel's
consciousness is dominated by social awareness for the paradoxical reason
that he is not conscious of his social awareness. ie, He doesn't realize
that his social awareness is relative rather than absolute.
To sum up, the first point (that talking about types of patterns) doesn't
work is the most important. If we can agree on what the levels are not,
then we can work on figuring out what they are. So I ask again, which type
if pattern is a person?
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 08 2002 - 22:07:12 GMT