[MD] -elitist ideas

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Case]
> We can bend and twist words to mean whatever we want.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Didn't "chaos" mean something different ten or twenty years ago? Our 
> understandings of quantum physics altered the entire way we think 
> about the fundamental undergirdings of "reality". And language 
> adapted to meet those changing understandings. All I am saying is 
> that a similar, radical shift in metaphysics necessitates rethinking 
> what words mean under the old S/O logic. "Value" is one. In the past 
> (and in most of the present), S/O logic dictates that "value" is 
> simply human subjective experience. The MOQ radically destroys that, 
> saying "value" is not "human subjective experience", but the Quality 
> experience that underlies all of reality, from quarks to Quantum Physics.
> 
> I'm no longer really sure what we're arguing against, Case. You seem 
> to be suggesting that one can have the MOQ, but change none of the 
> ways of thinking or understanding we had previously.
> 
> I see nothing in the eso-/exoteric differentiation here. I think the 
> strenght of the MOQ is that it doesn't invent new terms that are 
> understandable only by an initiated few. Value, Quality, these are 
> things everyone knows. There is nothing hidden or arcane in the 
> statement "an electron experiences inorganic value". It is a primary 
> statement of Quality everyone can relate to. I'd say, instead, it is 
> S/O dualism that makes the statement fuzzy. And I am in full 
> agreement with Bo on that front. Its because you are so intent of 
> sticking with the S/O definition of "value" (subjective experience) 
> that it makes this recasting seem fuzzy. Certainly it is idiotic to 
> suggest an electron experiences value in any conscious way as humans 
> do. And when your use of value is so restricted, Quality remains a 
> higher-level subjective experience. But the whole point of the MOQ 
> was to overcome the old S/O ways of thinking. "Value" is not 
> "subjective experience", it is primary experience going all the way 
> down to the lowest particles we can name.
> 
> Relativity made us rethink what we mean by "time" and "space". 
> Quality makes us rethink what we mean by "value" and "experience". I 
> just don't see the problem.

Excellence response, Arlo. Your individuality shines!

Platt



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/