Elephant,
Thank you so much for responding! I have to wonder if Subject couldn't be
more accurately described as a pattern of consciousness or awareness
(hereafter referenced:"c/a"). This pattern of c/a then detects or discerns
Value perhaps as a degree of Quality inherent in an object, or even in
another subject (when, as we often do, we view a fellow subject as object).
I would further suggest that DQ is a force, rather than a sort of material
medium (in the artistic sense, i.e. paint), which influences patterns of
value in a positive way. Much like gravity or magnetism, Dynamic Quality is
a force or an influence for the Good. Static Quality is the pattern
as-latched from the last application of DQ. Does this track?
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>
>
> Gary - I think I agree with you. This why I keep asking whether 'subject'
> might mean something more than pattern of value. My answer: yes, I think
> so: a subject is a point of view, an imaginative power responsible for the
> patterning of SQ (the world doesn't individuate itself). Platt, I think
> that pretty much gives my view on your 'am I mistaken?' question:
> Yes. For
> Quality doesn't cut itself up, you know. There's a smoking gun here, or a
> choped bit of firewood, however you want to cohere your metaphors. The
> point being: no cuts without cutters. And SQ threads of SQ
> patterns are cut
> up bits of quality.
>
> No?
>
> Elephant
>
> > From: "Gary Charpentier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:41:15 -0500
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: MD Consciousness/Awareness
> >
> > 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
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:31 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: MD atomic awareness: reprise
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
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
