[MD] Re; The Quality/MOQ Dichotomy

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --


[Ham, previously]:
> You can only speculate on what your cat or another human being
> realizes.  But there can be no doubt as to what you as your own
> subject realizes.  Are we at least in agreement on this?  If not,
> how do you define "realization"?

[Platt]:
> "Realization" equals awareness equals experience. Yes, we
> agree that I'm aware of being aware -- if I stop to think (SOL)
> about it. I doubt if UTOE is similarly aware of being aware, however.

I assume you accept awareness of being-aware as the equivalent of 
self-awareness.
In that case, awareness is not something you have to "stop and think about".
Pre-intellectually (prior to any reflection) you, yourself, are the knower 
of your
experience.  Is that not true?

[Ham]:
> Assuming your analysis of the MoQ's "subject" is correct,
> you have "patterns of value" chasing after value.

[Platt]:
> Not chasing, interacting.

[Ham]:
> A value (or pattern of values) has no need to interact
> with what it already is.

[Platt]:
> "Need" is a value. The "interaction" is a value. Value "is."

So, according to your ontology, there is no reality but Value.  Everything 
equates to it; that is to say, Value = Self = Experience = Realization.  All 
distinctions are patterns created by Intellect which is a higher (Dynamic) 
level of Value.  Does that correctly state your MOQ worldview?

[Ham]:
> This throws Michael's concept of the subject
> "seeking transcendence" flat on its face.

[It also ignores subjective desire, motivation, individual initiative, 
inspiration, aesthetic appreciation, and a host of other psycho-emotional 
sensibilities that you earnestly believe in.]

[Platt]:
> How so? There are high values and low values.
> To some transcendence is a high value.

But doesn't the "level" or "pattern" of value ultimately equate to Value 
itself?  The reality you have outlined IS Value, and ONLY Value.  Patterns 
and levels are but intellectual reductions (illusory divisions) of the 
aggregate Value, are they not?   Isn't this how the MoQ "overcomes" SOM?

[Platt]:
> Sensibility is sense-of-value. UTOE has it, a cockroach
> has it, an atom has it.
>
> Motivation towards higher value (betterness) is built into the
> universe, as represented in all creatures (value patterns)
> great and small. It's the answer to, "Why survive?"
>
> The "power of knowing or realizing" is plain old "experience."
> Intellect is based on the value of the subject/object division
> which in turn is the basis of reason, logic, science. Beyond
> intellect is the wordless understanding that experience and
> value are inseparable.

In your (MoQ) view of existence, patterning (i.e. differentiation) is the 
only creation, and even that is illusory.  You do not allow for a Creator, 
and there is no teleological purpose for existence.  With all due respect, 
Platt, the reality you have described amounts to little more than something 
called Value having a dream about being differentiated.  Were I a religious 
man, I would find this worldview a pathetic substitute for theism.  As a 
philosophy, it lacks substance, meaning, and metaphysical insight.

Thank you for your explanation.  (I'm almost sorry now that I asked for it.)

Best regards,
Ham