From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Oct 03 2004 - 17:16:03 BST
David M,
Notice that you start with one question (how do we describe awareness) but
then you drop that question entirely when you get into cataloguing
patterns. Cataloging patterns is a good thing to do, but it cannot help in
answering the original question.
My answer is that one cannot describe awareness, no more than one can
describe Quality. What one can do is point out general forms in which
awareness and value occurs. You proceed with some, Mel has proceeded with
others (his creations of empty space and so on). While interesting, I find
these to have started one or two steps too far. The more basic patterns, in
my opinion, can be found in Peirce's phenomenology (his categories of
Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness), and in the logic of contradictory
identity. (I've mentioned the latter many times, and I'm in the middle of
descrbing the former in a response to the paper that Ant just put on his
website.)
On what you say, though, are you saying that inanimate implies non-aware?
If you are, then you are in trouble, since now you must explain what it is
about animate patterns systems that *produces* awareness, and I don't think
there can be any such explanation.
- Scott
> [Original Message]
> From: David Morey <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Date: 10/2/2004 3:14:01 PM
> Subject: Re: MD MOQ DQ SQ Awareness
>
> Hi all
>
> How do/can we describe awareness in the MOQ in terms or SQ & DQ?
>
> To begin with, within the small whole of my experience I am aware of
> everything.
> What I am not aware of I do not experience. Awareness is clearly
> fundamental.
> I value the patterns I am aware of differently. Some I take little notice
> of, but
> it is clearly worthwhile keeping my eye on them or else they drift out of
my
> awareness. I move around. Patterns absent themselves from my awareness
> and others appear: as I move from the hall to the kitchen. I describe and
> know
> patterns through general/universal concepts such as 'kitchen' or 'hall'.
And
> these
> patterns contain other patterns like 'taps' and 'walls'. And all these
> patterns are
> contained in larger patterns like house, country, world, cosmos, up to the
> largest
> pattern I have some experience of, i.e. the universe. All these patterns
> change
> and keep changing the overall pattern that is the little wholeness and
> everything
> of myself. Some patterns have special qualities. They can change the
> body-patterns
> within my whole-self of experience. Like big rocks falling on my head. My
> body patterns
> are special. They clearly try to sustain themselves. If they are injured
> they mend.
> Other patterns effect me, they make me see what I call red or blue, or
smell
> something,
> etc. My experience of everything over the time of my life is a collection
of
> patterns that
> have effected those patterns that seem to be self organising and
> controlling. My self
> organisation patterns can also influence those patterns that seem to be
> organised
> by an intention that is not entirely my own. I know that there are many
> other living
> self-organising patterns that come into the realm of my little whole-self.
> In this realm
> these others influence my self-organising patterns and I can influence
> their's.
> They are clearly aware of patterns too.
>
> In fact is it not the most obvious conclusion that any self-organising
> pattern that responds
> to other patterns must have some form of awareness? Or can anyone argue
for
> an
> animate/inanimate distinction in the MOQ?
>
> I see one proabable realm of inanimate interaction of patterns and that is
> when a pattern
> is unable to maintain itself in the presence of another pattern, when it
is
> overwhelmed.
> EG when the cow pattern eats the grass pattern, or when a bigger atom
steals
> the electron
> from a smaller atom (part joke). This is the end of a pattern of
> self-organising awareness.
> We call it death. I think patterns interact with each other across space:
> near/far/touching.
> I think self-organising patterns interact over time with themselves, this
is
> memory
> and inner awareness. Self-organisation is causality across time. So far
> science has
> concentrated on the causality of patterns interacting in space with each
> other. The
> science of self-organisation across time has had less attention. The
> self-whole-experience
> is the interaction of self-organisation 'within' across time, and
> interaction with other self-
> organising patterns that are outside our inner self-organisation but are
> within our realm
> of self-experience awareness.
>
> Knowledge is just how well we are able to create patterns within our
> self-organisation
> (via society,language,etc) that simulate how other patterns of
> self-organisation operate.
> So we can duck the ball being thrown at us, etc.
>
> Make any sense.
>
> regards
> David Morey
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 03 2004 - 17:42:29 BST