[MD] British Emergentism

[MarshaV]

[Arlo] 
> My take on the MOQ is that Quality is fundamental, and that 
patterns only emerge as a response to this foundation. 



[Marsha] 
> Dyanmic and static quality, or as I like to say, 
> unpatterned experience and patterned experience. 



[Craig]
Do we need to reconcile these 2 views? 

Do patterns emerge as a response to quality 

or are they identical to it? 

Why do we use 2 different words: quality & experience? 

Is it because "high & low quality experience" sounds OK, 
but "high & low quality quality" sounds weird? 
Is it  "to be is to experience" 
or "to be is to be experienced"? 

Could there be something that experiences 
but is not experienced (= ghosts)? 

Could there be something that is experienced 
but does not experience (= zombies)? 
If quality is undifferentiated, could there be 
different ways to respond to it? 

Just asking. 


Marsha:
Just asking?  I was going to stick to saying that quality/value/experience/reality are synonyms, but...          

I still think the best understanding of REALITY (QUALITY) is found in Lila's words: "...I'm whatever your questions turn me into. You don't see that. It's your questions that make me who I am. If you think I'm an angel then that's what I am. If you think I'm a whore then that's what I am. I'm whatever you think. And if you change your mind about me then I change too. So whatever Richard tells you, it's true. There's no way he can lie about me."    -    Reality (Quality) is whatever you think it is, there's no way you can lie about it, and if you change your understanding of reality (quality), then reality (quality) changes too.