From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 19:12:38 BST
Hi Platt,
Thanks for clearing this up. If all you mean by "throwing out SOM" is
changing the language from 'object' to 'pattern of value' then I'm fine with
that, it doesn't seem to be throwing out SOM, just rephrasing it (PoVPoVM?).
I'd prefer a less aggressive, less zealotrous phrase than "throw out"
though. There is nothing about SOM that needs to be thrown out.
>...those who buy the MoQ and those who follow SOM share the same
>reality. Both see a bear as potentially harmful. The only difference is
>the MoQ guy sees a biological pattern of value and the SOM guys sees an
>large hairy object with big teeth and bad breath. To both, being
>threatened by a bear is a low quality experience, for sure.
Seeing only a pattern of value, and being only a pattern of value yourself,
really removes the life from life. It is like reading a book and seeing
only patterns of letters, or, perhaps a story and characters, but still not
actually feeling the drama. In my opinion, on seeing a bear, the "MoQ guy"
becomes an "SOM guy" right quick, and that's why I think you can't throw out
SOM, it is silly to think we can or should.
>But here's the
>key: the names we use to describe experience have their origins in our
>metaphysics, the beliefs we hold about what our experiences mean. If we
>believe experiences stem from subjects who experience independent objects
>outside our skins, then for us that's reality. On the other hand, if we
>believe our experiences stem from patterns of value who experience Dynamic
>Quality and other patterns of value, then for us that's reality.
I'm afraid I don't see what lock this key opens.
>What I gain by throwing out SOM is a better explanation of experience. In
>the MoQ, experience, existence and morality are all synonyms for the ocean
>of awareness we swim in, trying to catch the beneficial currents and
>avoiding the rip tides.
The MoQ fosters a deeper and more mature understanding of experience, and
most importantly to me, it puts morality back out in plain view on center
stage, the star of the show. I guess if you feel that SOM eclipses that
understanding, or prevents it, then yes, it should be thrown out. But I
feel it doesn't eclipse MoQ or prevent an understanding of the moral
ontological basis of subjects and objects.
Johnny
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: RE: MD MOQ human development and the levels
>Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:57:46 -0400
>
>Hi Johnny,
>
> > >We don't need SOM any more. The world is a world of concepts--patterns
>of
> > >Quality. Patterns only exist as mental abstractions.
>
> > So you believe that pre-human history is only a backwards projection of
> > what must have been? I agree, that's my Creation Theory also, that the
> > world is created with all its history as it seems to have been, every
> > moment. But my human sanity compells me to also believe that that the
>past
> > really happened, and that the present and future are dependent on it.
>So I
> > believe that early molecules formed in the primordial soup, etc, long
> > before any minds evolved to be aware of them, even though I understand
> > philosphically that it only happened abstractedly. And I believe that
>my
> > car will be damaged if I drive it into a tree, even if I don't see the
> > tree. And that I can't just take someone else's property and tell them
>to
> > imagine I didn't, it was only a mental abstraction anyhow. The world
>that
> > is is a world of concepts is an Object - it is a world that objectively
> > exists. For you, me and everyone, Bush is really the President of the
>US.
> > Yes it is a pattern of Quality, but experience isn't felt by experience
> > itself, experience is felt by subjects. Subjects and Objects are the
>Son,
> > the Created world, and Quality is the Father, but the Father needed the
>Son
> > to experience itself, to exist.
> >
> > Maybe I'm not sure what we mean by SOM here, I think of it as believing
> > that things really exist, that I exist, etc. As I'm sure you dont
>dispute
> > that, there must be some narrower definition that you are using.
>
>Well, I do make a distinction between words (concepts) and things. I try
>to keep in mind the independence of symbols from the things symbolized,
>the map from the territory, the menu from the meal. The words "existence,"
>"object," "subject," and "pattern of value" point to experience, but names
>for what we experience are not the experiences themselves. But here's the
>key: the names we use to describe experience have their origins in our
>metaphysics, the beliefs we hold about what our experiences mean. If we
>believe experiences stem from subjects who experience independent objects
>outside our skins, then for us that's reality. On the other hand, if we
>believe our experiences stem from patterns of value who experience Dynamic
>Quality and other patterns of value, then for us that's reality. Either
>way, experiences are the same. Only the metaphysics, the meanings and the
>words change. Pirsig put it this way:
>
>"Strike out the word "substance" wherever it appears and substitute the
>expression "stable inorganic pattern of value." Again the difference is
>linguistic. It doesn't make a whit of difference in the laboratory which
>term is used. No dials change their readings. The observed laboratory data
>are exactly the same."
>
> > >What is the benefit
> > >of hanging onto the symbols of "subjects" and "objects" instead of
> > >"patterns of Quality?" I guess the main benefit is to think like
>everybody
> > >else and so get along without making waves..
> >
> > That's the main benefit, sure, to not be insane, to please people. To
> > value things appropriately. There are lots of mental hospitals with
>wards
> > for people who have taken idealism to debilitating solipsistic
>conclusions
> > and denied our shared reality, SOM.
>
>True. But those who buy the MoQ and those who follow SOM share the same
>reality. Both see a bear as potentially harmful. The only difference is
>the MoQ guy sees a biological pattern of value and the SOM guys sees an
>large hairy object with big teeth and bad breath. To both, being
>threatened by a bear is a low quality experience, for sure.
>
> > > Dynamic Quality creates patterns of value, not subjects and objects.
>
> > But you just said that the patterns are mental abstractions. That
>implies
> > a mind, a subject. Yes, that mind is itself a pattern of quality,
>created
> > by morality, which is the original source, but we don't live in that
> > original source, we live in differentiated patterns of quality.
>
>Yes. Those who buy the MoQ believe we live in different patterns of
>quality, not subjects and objects. As for the original source, it's still
>active.
>
> > >So yes, the MoQ accounts for SOM, but replaces it with better
> > >explanation of the how the world is and works.
>
> > It augments it, it doesn't replace it. It explains the relationship of
> > morality to existence, but doesn't throw out existence. I don't
>understand
> > what you feel is gained by throwing out SOM, and, can I have your stuff
> > when you do?
>
>What I gain by throwing out SOM is a better explanation of experience. In
>the MoQ, experience, existence and morality are all synonyms for the ocean
>of awareness we swim in, trying to catch the beneficial currents and
>avoiding the rip tides.
>
> > >If you want to stick to SOM, fine. My preference is MoQ. Probably
>strokes
> > >my ego to be different that way.
>
> > I'm not "sticking to SOM", I am adding an understanding of quality and
> > morality as the source of reality, while still living life in a real
>world
> > containing people and things that really exist, as real as rocks and
>trees.
> > I'm sure you are too.
>
>Yes, and I hope I've made it clear that the "real world" can be named
>things like rocks and trees, or patterns of inorganic and biological
>value. The names change, but the observed data remain exactly the same.
>
>Platt
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 19:13:09 BST