[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[LARAMIE LOEWEN]

>May I interject...

Hi Jos.  Sure.

>Laramie:
>"the way you respond [to Value] is determined by
>the complexity of your understanding."

>Couldn't agree more if I understand you right, maybe what follows is at
>least loosely compatible.

>If "you" is replaced by "one" or "it" and refers in all cases to any static 
>pattern of value, then the way "you" respond to value (DQ) does vary 
>dependent upon complexity of the understanding that is "you".
>If the complexity of the understanding is the same as the complexity of the
>pattern then that complexity neatly maps onto an evolutionary scale.  The 
>response of a simple understanding (like a rusty nail) is just
>"interraction", whereas the response of a complex understanding like a man
>is what we know as perception.

Yeah, that's pretty compatible.  Except in my original comment I intentionally
used "I" and "my" rather than "you" and "your", suggesting a tacit impersonal
witness removed from SQ ("you") and DQ (Value), which I'm pretty sure the 
MoQ would not accept.   

>As I see it, any pattern of existence includes the observer and the observed
>- untill "you" look at something the pattern that is both, doesn't exist
>yet.  

Right!  Prior to "you" looking, there is just ~I~ or sheer Being.

>The act of percieving (valuing) actualises the thing.  "In it's self"
>it's something else.

Well, I'd have to say: "In its self" it's that and more.  

>If the idea that various species of responses are present in any pattern no
>matter how simple it (s understanding) is gets around this as the
>actualisation from DQ (or possibly essence) of the observed by the observer
>happens when any pattern meets another and isn't relient on complex patterns 
>having to actualize everything.

 Exactly!  I like the way you think, Jos.  Thank you for writing.

Cheers,
Laramie