Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Wed, 27 May 1998 02:55:10 +0100
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 23:01:22 +0000
Theo Schramm <theoschramm@hotmail.com>
wrote:
(snip)...........
> For me this seems to be going off in completely the wrong direction.
> Quality MUST be prior to recognition. The above is saying that "Quality
> has to involve recognition of meaning" which translates as, "Quality is
> in the mind of the observer, or observers," (cognisation and
> re-cognisation, by definition, require mind) which in turn translates as
> subjectivism and idealism. Quality and value existed billions of years
> before any intelligent observer, and the organic level had more value
> than the inorganic level long before we evaluated it.
Theo and Squad.
You anticipated my own reaction to the quoted passages by Jonathan and
Fintan. Their utterances are well-meaning, but goes against the
grain of the Quality idea which is to uproot the paradoxes created by
the concepts of SOM - in this case if you unwittingly
bring the mind/intelligence/consciousness (raw) into
Q-Intellect.
You are correct: Quality is prior to recognition - or: Quality IS
recognition. VALUE IS EXPERIENCE! The importance of this assertion
has been a sensitive point all through the LS life and possibly ever
since the Q-idea was launched by RMP. However, this is the point
where it takes leave of all (in my opinion) previous ideas (and the
reason for my previous smelling of danger when you wanted us to
recognize idealism and materialism! ;-))
The idea that Quality can only be recognised/perceived by an
intelligent mind - a sentient being - is SOM back in force and I am
certain that both Jonathan and Fintan will recognize that. The Q
version is that the various static patterns are recognition of the
actual level's value. When evolution reaches the Q-Intellect it has
nothing to do with SOM's consciousness or awareness:
shortly M-I-N-D! Fintan's monkeys eating the manuscript, value it's
biological "content" - as would we in a dire situation - were we
able to digest cellulose? :-) All this will hopefully come up as a
discussion topic later..
> From these (Hugo & Diana) I offer:
> " A subject object metaphysics is any one of a family of explanations of
> reality which rest upon the tacit assumption that there are two separate
> and irreducible fundamentals in the way we perceive the universe, namely
> the experiencing subject and the experienced object. Although not
> necessarily recognised by its proponents this 'A or not A' position
> leads to an irreconcilable tension between subjective reality and
> objective reality with each vying for dominance within the subject
> object metaphysical system."
> Fire away.
No need for firing from my quarters! I thought at first that you
were the one going in the wrong direction, but now reveal a firm
grasp of the quality idea. (As the "nestor" of the LS I take
the liberty to say so). Let me also say that I appreciate your fusion
of Hugo's and Diana's SOM definitions.
Sincerely
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST