Welcome Mr Ricky alias Socrates,
You wrote :
>Hello, first time caller, long time listener. Anyway, the recent post from
>Mistah Dillon arose a slight irk in my belly. One the whole, it was good,
>but a couple of points fuzzled me:
Sir, it is an honour to have you with us as a participant rather than
just an observer after such a "long time ". To be irked is of great
creative significance - believe me , i know from experience. Silliness
is not so useful, however, at least for me.
An analysis is a study of the nature of a "whole" by breaking up or
splitting the whole into parts or elements that are seperately studied
for its properties, attributes ,forms etc AND the Relation of these parts
between themselves and the "whole".In scientific testing sometimes a
physical whole has to be physically broken up for analysis, but in
metaphysical analysis , there is no such danger of a "whole" that will
get irretrievably shattered, unless of course one starts worshiping
the parts or even the whole.
MOQ is also an meta-analytic split of Quality,"a whole" into two parts
or elements namely Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. Although the
Dynamic - Static pair is a true pair of counterparts, these exist in
relation to each other like the electron - proton pair. Static Quality
has been split further VERTICALLY into four levels, as MOQers must
be aware of, but NOT Horizontally.
In your observations of my analysis of static patterns of value, i did
find some value in the first point that irked your belly. As for the
second point in which you had to experience silliness i can only
express regret for having been the cause of it. Kindly feel free to
delete any part of it that causes silliness. A rule of thumb i use
personally to great benefit is : I use(thus value) that parts of someone
else's analysis that i find immediately useful, those that appear absurd,
silly, junk, trash, tough, ridiculous, etc etc , instead of discarding
them, i try to sense if the context of the source is different than
that in which i tried to fit them into. If i am able to remodel the
context, sometimes i find more value than the parts that were of
immediate use. This exercise takes up a lot of time, and sometimes
a headache, but i usually find it worth the while.
In any meta-analysis, there are however bound to be parts that
"somebody" will find silly and irksome , and when i find no further use
of certain parts i usually put these in the "unuseful" tray, and with
time if these still remain unused, these get deleted automatically
- i guess.
The first point you raised goes into the heart of MOQ, and sir,
if you care to indulge me, i would like to go deeper into this
analysis so that the relation between MOQ and SOM can be studied,
which you also must have observed has caused a lot of heartburns.
You wrote :
>Here, I see a separation that I see people fall into sometimes (actually,
>mostly myself) when dealing with Value. "Static Patterns" and "Static
>Patterns of Value" are shown as different when, from my grasping, they're
>not. Static patterns *are* value. EVERYTHING'S value. Not necessarily in
>the sense where we individually cherish every little quark, but that to
>exist to our consciousness, to be "sensed", it must be valued. It's a
>psychological fact, however factual psychology is, that our attention is a
>screened-out view of what we sense. We sense millions of things, but our
>discriminating brain picks our what it likes to attend to. Nowhere is this
>more true than in our minds, for as was pointed out earlier, the MOQ is an
>intellectual construct. It's all in our heads. And, for the fickle
>existence of our mental abstractions, we must value them or else we can
>easily forget about them. If you're paying atention to something else and
>you walk into a tree, then it's not so easy to forget it. But, when you're
>pondering a math problem, looking for the truth, and a logical wall arises,
>you can walk through it, so concentrated are you on the problem's "value".
>What I'm getting at is that there's no separation twixt between static
>patterns and static patterns of value(Hello, Pattern. Hello, Value. Good
>night, Pattern. Good night, Value); they're one and the same, like "a
>Milky Way" and "Milky Ways of chocolate and caramel". To assume so means
>putting a SOMish crack in the MOQ. Value and experience are no different,
>either. Separating can be pragmatic, but I always do so with extreme
>caution.
When we go into the study of one part of Quality - namely Static
Quality, or the Quality of Order, we are basically talking about Static
Values.
While it is true that it makes no "SENSE" to talk of Static Patterns
independent of any value whatsoever, it also makes no sense to talk about
Static Patterns having Value independent of a BEING "for whom" this is value
for.I hold that Value is an attribute of BEING, without BEING there is no
value,
yet there is a certain kind of value inherent in every Static Pattern,
which is reflected in its underlying order or form.
To resolve this paradox , it is therefore valid to say that "Everything
has an inherent POTENTIAL VALUE", and it is the act of percieving that
realises(or does not ) this value which can thus be differentiated as
PERCIEVED VALUE for a BEING, which may or may not reflect the Potential
Value of the Static Pattern. But what this potential value actually is,
can only be guessed at for no sooner do we try to attach actual value,
it becomes Percieved value. Even the guess is a perceptual valuation.
In my last post i have, without stating it formally, have SPLIT
Static Quality , the Quality of ORDER, HORIZONTALLY into two kinds:
1) Static Patterns having an inherent order or POTENTIAL VALUE
2) Static Patterns having a certain value FOR A BEING/s or PERCIEVED
VALUE.
A few grains of sand have silicon that has the potential of becoming a
microprocessor, but this mP can be used to launch a nuclear missile by
someone who percieves value in such an action or used to prevent this
event from occuring by someone else who has value to the contrary.
These grains of sand as they are have value for people on the beach.
When i say Hello to ten different people it usually is with different
personal value for me , but the word "Hello" has an underlying order
that has an inherent potential value. To say Hello to someone who
does not know an iota of English, and this potential value is not
realised, although it still has the potential value. When Lionel
Richie sings "Hello" he actually ADDS to the potential value of
Hello.
Thus it is the inherent ORDER in a static pattern that gives it its
potential value. As the example above demonstrates, this ORDER CAN
UNDERGO TRANSFORMATION WITHIN A BEING into a higher order (greater
potential) or even to a lower order (lesser potential). The agent
or force or the "vital ingredient" for this TRANSFORMATION is
DYNAMIC QUALITY.
THUS STATIC PATTERNS ARE EITHER EVOLVING OR DEVOLVING in a
VERTICAL hierarchy and one such representation is the four level
hierarchy in lila.
I cant think of anything else to say for Potential Value , sofar as
Percieved Value is concerned, if we take this analysis further, i think
a relationship with SOM can be established.
I have tried to show in these two posts that for a given static pattern,
its Percieved Value usually varies greatly from one individual to another
and
THE ONLY STATIC PATTERNS where there is currently great degree of GENERAL
AGREEMENT are the ATTRIBUTES or PROPERTIES of INORGANIC PATTERNS ie Matter.
So i will make a further split of PERCIEVED VALUE of STATIC PATTERNS
as :
1. Percieved Value of a static pattern by an individual being that is
held by the being inspite of there being no agreement about this
value with any other being , can be termed as SUBJECTIVE STATIC
PATTERNS
2. Percieved Value of a static Pattern by an individual , that is also
held by a large majority of beings within an environment, the value
upheld, 'tested' and proven to be generally true and taught as true
by eminent beings termed as scientists and intellectuals , can be
termed as OBJECTIVE STATIC PATTERNS. Now it is clear that the term
OBJECT can in its proper sense only be a "static pattern of percieved
value" that most subjects sharing a common space AGREE with.Thus it
is no surprise that even what is termed as OBJECTIVE has been undergoing
change with the passage of time.
Between these extremes, however there is another category that deserves
mention because of its importance : The Static Quality of SPECIAL AGREEMENT
where a group of individuals or a society agree upon the percieved value of
a
set of Static Patterns but the majority of societies/individuals in the
world
do not.
Hopefully this takes care of the irksome point.
As to the second point that was silly, i dont think there is any value in
disputing that the Inorganic is more fundamental than Biological. However
the Inorganic and its properties has already been analysed and beaten to
death
by scientists but they have yet to make any announcements regarding
anything
moral there. Now if someone could have found morals in tons of mathematical
equations we wouldnt be having an inquiry into morals here.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST