From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 20:51:24 BST
Ham
For the MOQ quality=experience
for there to be any experience we
have to be aware of qualities
and what qualities probably came first?
pain & pleasure perhaps or too light
vs too dark. The whole thing wraps
together: experience/values/awareness
and as soon as something reaches out
or pulls back we have agency, wrapped
up with value. The MOQ starts with
experience before positing any agent
isolated or separate from any world.
All that subjective-ego vs other-world
stuff is heavily laden theory. Quality
is prior to any inner-outer or self vs world
distinction, all SOM and any scepticism,
look up why Heidegger proposed Dasein to
overcome scepticism about the external
world. MOQ tries to look at the make up
of experience without positing any entities
or essences. It says look/listen: so much dynamic
flux but look also patterns. In a way SOM sees
the SQ and ignores the DQ, or denegrates it as
merely subjective.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
> Ham
>
> Ham said:
> Man -- you and I individually, not as a group species -- is the primary
> "dynamic agent" in the realization of Value through the exercise of
> personal freedom.
>
> Paul:
> In the last post I picked up on the "personal freedom" aspect of this
> but I think there is an important statement here which I didn't answer.
> Such is the problem of discussing metaphysics!
>
> The difference between what you are saying and the MOQ is really quite
> subtle. You seem to be making an assumption that an individual "agent"
> exists that makes these value judgements and is therefore logically not
> the value judgements themselves.
>
> The MOQ is saying that value assertions create the individual in that
> they *are* the individual. So it isn't saying that individuals don't
> exist and that there is just this big collective mass of static
> patterns, which is the conclusion you are drawing.
>
> To me, I think this argument parallels the Brahmanic-Buddhist quarrel
> over the existence of atman. The Buddhist point of view, which the MOQ
> adopts, is that nothing has independent self-existence. The Buddhist
> description of an individual is a collection of processes or skandhas
> (feeling, perception, thinking). Translated into the MOQ, this overall
> process is evaluation, and this process creates patterns which occur
> together and that these patterns may be understood as individuals. If
> this process stops, so does the individual.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> P.S. For a couple of reasons, I'm taking a break from these discussions
> for a while. One of the reasons, that you may be interested in given
> your opening comments to this forum, is that I've been working on a kind
> of "exposition" of the MOQ (mainly for my own use), and I need a little
> time to complete it. I'll be unsubscribing to keep my mailbox from
> exploding but if you want to follow up with anything you can.
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 01:56:36 BST