Hi Elephant, Platt, Roger, Marco and all,
Elephant, it's good to see you back.
> PLATT:
> Good. We agree that objects are patterns of value.
ELEPHANT:
Yes, and my 'slant' on that, if you please, is that patterns of value, being
patterns of SQ, are patterns of *confered* value: complexes of judgements.
You do recognise don't you, that a pattern of DQ is a 'contradiction in
terms'? Since after all DQ being continuous can't be divided into any
threads to be woven and patterned together.
I am glad to concur on that, but we need to take it a stage further:
SUBJECTS are also patterns of value.
Since Elephant wants us to deny the property awareness to objects like atoms
BECAUSE they are patterns, the same reasoning should apply to subjects, in
short, to the whole of SQ.
Once we do this, awareness ceases to exist. I regard this as a step back to
the world of absolute determinism.
My own understanding of the MoQ is that there is nothing absolute about the
subject dichotomy. Subjects are also objects to the entity that does the
conferring of value.
Thus, the division of patterns between objects and subjects is relative.
For example, one might for the sake of argument regard Elephants opinion of
Shakespeare as subjective, but since he has given it to us in e-mail ("...I
care less for Bill ..."), I can state objectively that Elephant does not
particularly care for the bard.
I thus think we should careful about using words like "awareness" as
metaphysical cleavage terms that delineate between subjects and objects. In
particular, we must avoid making any such cleavage absolute. That's what I've
been trying to say since this "awareness" thread started.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
