While it is true that some humans seem
> to be very eager to achieve some static pattern of value and not proceed
> any further from there (mindsets), most human subjects exhibit a
> preference for dynamic quality to enable them to move beyond established
> static patterns towards something "better". But does this make our human
> subject a pattern of dynamic value? I don't think so, but I can't
> articulate exactly why. Perhaps this is where some of you folks can help
> me?
You are exactly right, humans are not patterns of DQ, DQ patterns cannot
take a "form" once they do, they are immediately transformed into static
quality patterns(humans, dogs, trees, rocks, etc.) All these static
patterns exist in an infinite sea of DQ patterns. Consciousness acts to
open the floodgates, if you will, and allows DQ to evolve these static
patterns into something higher, something better. I would have to conclude
that therefore anything without consciousness cannot evolve their static
patterns as there is no mechanism that I can think of that would allow for
this except consciousness/awareness.
--On Monday, April 30, 2001 12:41 PM -0500 Gary Charpentier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:rr
> I find Webster's dictionary invaluable when sorting out such questions of
> language. The primary definition of consciousness does not distinguish it
> from awareness, but subsequent definitions use the word "awareness" as an
> indicator of consciousness. It has been my (subjective) experience that
> one does not have to be mentally conscious to be "aware" of something
> happening, i.e. in a dream. Conversely, one need only ride a motorcycle
> in heavy traffic to realize that the conscious state of fellow motorists
> in no way implies any real awareness of what they are doing.
>
> I want to take issue with these statements offered by Platt and Elephant:
>> > 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.
>
> That is such a touchy distinction! I believe, when we designate a human
> being as the SUBJECT in question, that the term "pattern of value" cannot
> be confined to the static state. While it is true that some humans seem
> to be very eager to achieve some static pattern of value and not proceed
> any further from there (mindsets), most human subjects exhibit a
> preference for dynamic quality to enable them to move beyond established
> static patterns towards something "better". But does this make our human
> subject a pattern of dynamic value? I don't think so, but I can't
> articulate exactly why. Perhaps this is where some of you folks can help
> me?
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
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
