[MD] Does Quality exist?

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Platt

On 2 Dec. you wrote:

> > When your premises in addition (to misunderstaning the 4th. level)
> > is that the static hierarchy is "dogmatic and meaningless" no
> > wonder. But listen: The idea of God is also the idea of Zews or any
> > other deity - as is that of the moon and stars as deities - and in a
> > MOQ context this is social value (for a value it is) but compared to
> > it intellect is a higher value and deems the idea of god(s) to be
> > superstition. This it does because intellect is a blind to being a
> > value level (as the rest of the levels are) only from the MOQ the
> > value context is seen.             
 
> Good point about seeing the world in the MOQ "context" instead of
> through the usual subject/object lens. "Intellect is blind to being a
> value level" sums up the problem beautifully. Maybe some here who
> might better relate to the idea that the MOQ is a whole new "paradigm"
> instead of just another view resting on conventional assumptions.
> "Paradigm" appeals to fans of Thomas Kuhn's philosophy. 

Glad you see this point, I had the impression that you saw the 
intellectual level as "worthless", but what I've tried to convey is 
that the subject/object distinction as SOM (a world view where 
the said distinction is reality's ground) creates the worthlessness, 
the isolated subject facing an indifferent world, while the S/O as a 
(mere) static good can be the highest and best, yet subordinate to 
MOQ's DQ/SQ.  Your recognizing this as a paradigm shift is also 
most apt, that's what it is. Perhaps even a greater one than 
Kuhn's original model. The MOQ itself is no level as such, but 
merely the said "alta vista" from where the Quality context - 
including intellect as a static level - is seen. 

IMO

Bo