From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 20:51:01 GMT
Hello Matt,
Drawing a distinction between that which is known and a knower is a feature
of SoM. Patterns of value in a MoQ do not delineate subjective knowledge of
objective known. Intuition in the MoQ is unpatterned and has more sympathy
with Eastern approaches. Your treatment of Knowledge, belief and intuition is
based in tradition that has Subjects and Objects firmly rooted in its
fundamental distinctions regarding these terms.
Causation is redundant in the MoQ. The 'world' and 'we' are the same
evolutionary related forest of patterns and inseparable. While the MoQ is
provisional, it may be argued that it is of higher value than a SoM
perspective, and your treatment is such a SoM perspective.
Knowledge may be said to be of values, and the sceptic cannot deny value. The
sceptic becomes a supporter of patterns of value, which in turn becomes a
moral position.
The term belief may be replaced with value with no loss of meaning. More than
this, values are then seen as not centred on individuals. This opens up the
possibility of a non-substance based metaphysics in which social patterns are
as real as atoms, flesh and blood, and logic. The 'world' and 'we' are not
separated and to value that this is the case may be viewed as an intellectual
pattern of low quality.
There is little evidence that your position is non-SoM perspective.
Have you ever read any Locke? Aristotle conceived of essences as, 'What must
be known for a thing to be what it is.' That does not have to be a definition
- it can be a description of causes. But in the MoQ, cause is replaced by
value, so for a thing, (static pattern) to be what it is, is to know what
value it has. That is more than a recontextualisation, it is an expansion of
the format. Thus, to describe the MoQ in terms of language and metaphor,
subjects and objects, us and the world is to disregard the expanded format.
The statement that words are meant to be defined is contentious. What is
more, there cannot be definitions in a dynamic flux. What may be usefully
said is that words are static patterns? These patterns are open to dynamic
influence and thus linguistic evolution is possible.
I would contend that it is not possible to exist without differentials in
value to distinguish patterns. Therefore, differentiated patterns of value
are reality as much as Dynamic Quality. Cognition may be seen as a high
pattern of value, therefore cognition and reality are one and the same. To
differentiate between cognition and reality is a feature of SoM.
Static patterns of value constitute knowledge. Intuition is far more Dynamic.
I feel you need to become more clear with regard to Quality.
squonk
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 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 20:52:01 GMT