Replying to:
Hi Bo, Maggie, Bartz, All:
BO:
> Conclusion: Dynamic Value is not whatever we like, rather that existence
is
> LIKING. The MOQ also postulates the known static levels and the inorganic
> level includes no subject who likes. Even at the intellectual level
> existence includes all patterns - not merely intellects somish subject
> surveying objective reality. The biological NN craves nourishment, but
the
> social NN wants to be slim and rejects food, while the intellectual NN
> looks objectively on things and eats some healthy stuff. My point is that
> "what we like" isn't decided by SO-intellect's mind, but what the value
> levels compromise about.
>
> Have I made sense?
If I read you right, whichever of our conflicting value levels dominates at
the moment determines what we feel and say we "like." In a similar
fashion, Bartz's idea that "perception is reality" reflects what level
currently dominates the "perceiving" situation, guided by "liking" Is this
an accurate interpretation of your revealing new perspective on MOQ
reality?
If so, I certainly agree. I would extend it further by suggesting that
immediately after the Big Bang when we were just a dream in the
Universe's imagination, the inorganic level began to emerge from the
incalculable number of individual "likings" of particles to combine. They
were making judgments in their own primitive way that "this is better
than that," responding to the Principle of Rightness (represented by the
force of DQ) that created and continues to create all levels of existence.
It all hangs together and, as you say, "the MOQ makes much more
sense than the SOM." When all is said and done, SOM's dogma of
"chance." is every bit as rigid and unprovable as what creationists
believe. The faith of science in chance knows no bounds.
Platt
Response:
As much as I love MOQ, I cannot allow myself to complicate the issues when
my PERCEPTION (read reality) is that "perception is reality".
'Liking' is always a value judgement and will always remain an
individualistic perception. That is why you can get away with "reality is
whatever you like".
I certainly cannot propose a happy balance 'Formula', but it does have to
do with untraining ourselves from the knee jerk reactions and ascertaining
those 'value judging' moments for what they really mean to you.
Me thinks I ramble too much.
Bartz
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST