[MD] MOQ basics - Lila Squad old-timers

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Magnus,

>>
>>>>>>> 6. Static awareness. Each higher level evolved from the
>>>>>>> lower level but has become a discrete level. From the point
>>>>>>> of view of any level it is only possible to evaluate
>>>>>>> phenomena at that level.
>>
>> Steve: I still don't see what is interesting about this statement. It
>> sounds tautological, but I think it is problematic because it implies
>> that a level is a point of view.
>
> It's not really the "level" that has a point of view, it's the patterns
> of the level, but I guess that's obvious?
>
> And to exemplify on Chris' answer, a biological pattern can only
> evaluate other biological patterns. It's only because biological
> patterns depends on (consists of) inorganic patterns, that a biological
> *thing* can also evaluate inorganic patterns, such as gravity. I.e. the
> level 1 patterns are evaluating the level 1 events, the level 2 
> patterns
> are evaluating the level 2 events, etc.

Steve:
Okay, but it just seems obvious and uninteresting to say that rocks 
don't have intellectual preferences.


>>>>>>> 7. Static dominance. Because each lower level is unable to
>>>>>>> evaluate the other levels, it considers itself to be the
>>>>>>> most moral and strives to dominate the others.
>>>>>> makes no sense.
>>>>> Same as above.
>>>> Steve: It's the same issue. Levels don't themselves evaluate
>>>> anything, they are categories for  types of patterns of value. I
>>>> think all the personification of levels that goes on here is
>>>> muddling the MOQ.
>>
>> Magnus:
>>> We're in disagreement again, on both accounts.
>>>
>>> If the patterns of the different levels are not involved in the
>>> "valuing", then what is doing it?
>>
>> Steve: This ammounts to the ZAMM koan, is the quality in the subject
>> or the object?
>
> Exactly, and how did Phaedrus solve it? We just mentioned this in the
> "Value and the individual" thread today:
>
> [Magnus]
> Every single quality event involves two objects. From each object's
> point of view, *it* is the subject valuing the other.

Steve:
In Lila he abandons the Quality Event between a subject and an object 
in favor of his DQ and patterns of value model. We don't need to 
identify one thing as a subject and another as an object. Any thing we 
talk about is known in its thingness as a patterns of preferences.

But back to my point about 7...
>>>>>>> 7. Static dominance. Because each lower level is unable to
>>>>>>> evaluate the other levels, it considers itself to be the
>>>>>>> most moral and strives to dominate the others.

Even if you say that level means a pattern that is part of the level 
this doesn't work. Rocks think that they are most moral? Plants and 
dogs think that they are most moral?

Regards,
Steve