Good point Jonathan - you've made things clearer and brought something to my
attention. I haven't thought very much about that way of putting it and
it's pretty important. 'Subject', in so far as it means 'pattern of value'
isn't what's aware.
But of course, I think that there is something else that 'subject' can mean.
Consciousness? It sounds odd to say that consciousness is aware. Ok: *a*
consciousness is aware. But what about the introduction of numericisation
here ("*a*")......
Ho hm Jonathan......
Hm. And does RMP speak of this 'something else' too?
-Elephant
> From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:20:37 +0300
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MD atomic awareness: reprise
>
> 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
>
>
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
