From: Simon Magson (twix_570@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 18 2004 - 09:51:30 GMT
Scott Roberts wrote:
>My argument has been that value implies consciousness and intellect, that
>they should all be considered three names for the same (non)-thing. There
>is no value without appreciation of value, and no discerning of better and
>worse without intellect,
"Intellectually better or worse" is an intellectual value judgement which is
not the same thing as value itself, there is always SQ involved in a value
judgement. Value, experienced in and of itself, with no static reference
point is immediate and without judgement - it is just value and is not
subordinated to anything mental or physical. This is DQ. You are talking
about static quality.
that "static patterns of value" are not
>appreciated as patterns, nor can they be compared to other patterns,
>without intellect.
Agreed.
This does not imply that such intellect is human
>intellect, or even S/O-style intellect. I've said this several times, and
>have not heard a convincing rebuttal, so give it a shot.
Whatever variety of intellect you can come up with, there is no intellectual
comparison involved in DQ, there is nothing to compare it to, comparisons
are always static. DQ is just value, experienced as such, no intellect
required.
SM
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
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 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 10:14:51 GMT