Hi,
I guess, Jaap and everybody, the first place to start is with what the
subject and object of SOM means.
The subject is perceiving.
The object is being perceived.
There are many ways you could write this. I don't know what the best way
is. Even as I am looking at them (making my statements an object) I (the
subject) don't know if that's the best way to put it. But it'll have to do
for now.
Now for part 1:
1. - Describe 'object' in terms of MOQ; which are its static parts, and
which are its dynamic
parts ?
An 'object' is the thing being "looked at". Science is in the business of
objectifying things. That's how it determines functions and in general
explains things. When science turns its gaze to inorganic and biological
patterns, you get the natural sciences. When science turns its gaze on
social and intellectual patterns it gets the social sciences and other such
pursuits.
So let's take an inorganic 'object', say a rock. It is a very static
object. It hardly seems dynamic at all. But it can be, it just probably
never will be again. There's just not much room for being dynamic for a
rock. The level of the rock where dynamic stuff happens is at the
sub-atomic level. Electrons, protons, gluons, and the rest. When they
started forming up at the beginning of existence, the first atom was a
dynamic experience. And then after a bunch of atoms had formed, they (the
atoms) found they could continue to be dynamic by forming molecules.
Eventually they started being dynamic in forming stars and planets and dust
clouds. The deal is, the rock is into a very static pattern that it can't
find a way out of. Think of it wanting to, just not being able to. As
Pirsig says in Ch 11, carbon found that it could be more dynamic than the
other atoms. It was able to do all sorts of stuff, the biggest thing being
replication.
As a biological 'object', let's take a simple cell. The cell is static
pattern. However, the chances for it to be dynamic are exponentially
larger. Let's say we have a burgeoning animal cell. It developed cilia so
it can move around. And then say it bumped into a small bacterial cell and
"swallowed" it. But instead of digesting the smaller cell, it partnered up
with it in a symbiotic relationship. That's dynamic. Such a thing was
proposed by Lynn Margulis. Her theory proposes that the mitochondria in a
typical cell was not "created" by the bigger cell, but partnered up with a
smaller one. It's easier to see the dynamic in biological objects because
the seem to do a lot more.
As a social 'object', let's take the family. Let's say a cougar family.
We have a mother and a father and some cubs. Each member has a role. (I'm
gonna' weave a myth about cougar familial evolution, it's not based on fact
as far as I know). In the beginning, the father liked to hang around. He
was bigger and stronger and got his way. The father liked to eat a lot of
meat, though, and often didn't leave enough for the cubs. The mother,
feeling a stronger tie to the cubs, finally got fed up with the father and
fought him off. The father, not really wanting to get into a big scrape
over the stupid cubs, ran off. That's a dynamic change in authority.
Social patterns are based on authority and the mother cougar asserted
dynamic authority.
Our study of the MoQ makes the MoQ an intellectual object. The MoQ has
it's static parts, ZAMM and Lila, and it has it's dynamic parts, this
forum. It is changed on the basis of values that we apply to it, so called
"tests of truth". These are dynamic changes (in as far as I can tell).
The 'subject' in all this is hidden. In every part above it is us. But it
doesn't have to be. Every static pattern senses Quality because Quality is
everything. Every static pattern naturally drives forward toward Dynamic
Quality. In a way, the MoQ is pantheistic. It kinda' imbues a spirit in
the rocks and trees.
The subject-object split isn't so much denied as it is replaced. The
staic-Dynamic split offers a better interpretation of Quality.
Yaaaaaaaas,
Matt
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST