goodmetaphysics wrote:

What does that mean, 'a quality creates a substance'?

I say that Quality creates substance. Dynamic Quality to be precise.  Dynamic Quality is the undefined source of all things in the MOQ.  Substance is a defined static quality created (like all things) by the undefined source.   

What is a biological *value*? What bearing if any does 'value' here have to the ordinary uses of 'value'.

For (hopefully) an expedited understanding of the Metaphysics Of Quality I recommend checking out a trilogy of websites I created.

www.metaphysics.is
www.som.is
www.moq.is

But to answer your question - the distinction between inorganic value and biological value is that while both are physical matter - inorganic quality (or inorganic patterns of value) is all physical matter without DNA and biological quality (or biological patterns of value) is all physical matter with DNA. 

I've read your website. I'm lacking a philosophically astute translation of your system.

I asked you to relate this eccentric use of 'value' with a common use. Unless you just want to use it as a dummy term to mark this distinction (though I don't understand why that's your fundamental division numbers, for instance, seem to be neither, minds have no dna, values in the normal sense seems to be neither, God wouldn't fit the distinction, the universe as a whole wouldn't fit it, etc etc.

I read them when the thread started in, what was it, October of 2015? Forgive me if I forgot that two distinct qualities are in fact one quality.

By virtue of what are they distinguished as *two* qualities rather than both simply being "dynamic quality" full stop? Or does quality take on a different meaning after its fundamental division? After all, you have already claimed that everything is ultimately dynamic quality (including, presumably, static quality).

God never meant what you said it does. That's little but a slur.

I'm going to, again, ask you to define 'value' relative to a standard use of the term. You are employing an eccentric use of at least 3 traditional philosophical terms and I have literally no way of charting what you're saying onto common language other that to memorize your terms and their use. I'm just going to replace 'quality' with Q, 'value' with V, 'definition' with D and etc if you won't translate yourself.

You appear to be an eccentric realist about certain non-physical items who places special emphasis on value. Since that's basically Plato (including the ill developed monism), I don't understand your need for an obscure way of using philosophical terms. You're in a place that uses the traditional categorical language including 'quality' etc. They don't have the vaguely profound sense for us they do for many people.

goodmetaphysics wrote:

Whilst value cannot ultimately be defined - it is understood by all people and things - from a newborn infant to a particle at the quantum level.

What sense does it make to say that a particle at the quantum level understands quality? Would it be right to say that it has the same extension as being. As such, it has no internal content whatsoever, and is distinct from being/existence?

goodmetaphysics wrote:

A lot of sense.

Expound on the claim that inanimate things, and the quantum level "understands" anything. I take understanding to be something like "simple apprehension.

"Simple apprehension" is a technical term. It means basically "conceiving," "understanding," or "comprehending" one object of thought, one concept, such as 'mortal' or 'man' or 'triangle' or triangle with unequal angles.' Your bizarre usage of the term is beyond me, so I'd like you to further explain this, if you cannot---then I'll say the same thing I said to you last time we talked, this seems completely vacuous. 

goodmetaphysics wrote:

If you want to call it 'being' go right ahead - but to me, that misses the mark.  I can see both Matt and yourself trying to throw a definition against Quality so you can get to the 'true intellectual understanding' of it.  But Quality is before truth - you actually already know what it is.

This is very important. Either it is equivalent or synonymous with being, or it is not. This is a integral part of our discourse. You'd have to give a definitive answer, this isn't good enough.

goodmetaphysics wrote:

You can't get out of bed in the morning without making a qualitative decision that it's better to do so than not. That's quality.

Unless you help us understand it any better, I can say the same thing--replacing the term "quality" with "X," and then say you can't deny that without making a "X-ing" decision. The term "qualitative" is not synonmous with how you want to use the term "Quality." I think that should be obvious, so I'm estranged as to what you think you've demonstrated by that statement.

goodmetaphysics wrote:

Whilst value cannot ultimately be defined - it is understood by all people and things - from a newborn infant to a particle at the quantum level.

My bad I inferred wrongly from that.

goodmetaphysics wrote:

To be sure I never said they 'understand' things.  They make basic qualitative decisions.

This is still incomplete and needs to be explained. Inanimate objects are incapable of making decisions. Decisions are activations of rational choice (though not always). What sense does it make to say that inanimate things and the quantum level residents make decisions? 

metaphysics wrote:

I'm trying to get you out of the 'intellectual' lens and see that there's experience which isn't intellectual and decisions are continually made in this pre-intellectual sphere that we often take for granted. It's not at all surprising to me that this is where we are finding difficulty understanding.  For 2.5k years we have been working under the assumption that everything of worth can be defined.  The MOQ disagrees with this and says that the most important thing cannot be defined for it is before definition.  A definition cannot capture it.

I know your story about the metaphysics, no offense, but that story is little to nothing when it comes to comparing the coherency of the claims, I consider it mostly to be rhetoric of sorts rather than explanation, or a brief summary of ones book (if you're going to write on where you expand on it, let me know).

goodmetaphysics wrote:

Every single pre-intellectual decisions is qualitative. Yes, that is synonymous with how I use the term Quality.

If you would've said that, things could've been so much easier. Why couldn't you just say that? Quality is basically something akin to the elements of experience, something like Phenomenology? Most realist metaphysics accepts them, they don't consider them undefinable. Things like the topic of Universals are based on fully accepting things as how they are, and people argue for Moorean Truths (things that not even philosophers shouldn't deny). No one here is going to discard that experience of things, the qualitative experiences are basic, and in fact, necessary to any kind of investigation which leads to richer philosophical premises and conclusions. Your metaphysic doesn't seem to have an edge on anything, if you think these things are defined. But just to be sure, as how you have made it synonymous with qualitative experience, I see no reason to deny it, but then no reason to accept your metaphysic either. I would argue that this is purely basic, and if I'm right, the study of Phenomenology rightly delves into it.

Last edited by Dennis (7/31/2016 7:01 am)