Hi Magnus, Dave and all,
MAGNUS
> So how can subjects only exist in the two top levels and objects
> only in the lower two levels???
>
> They simply don't! It's wrong. Forget all about it!
Magnus, I agree. Perhaps Dave has the answer.
DAVE
>What is often overlooked is that it SOM, not Pirsig or the MoQ, that
>divides these four divisions with the top two as subjective and the
>bottom two as objective.
As for SO operating at multiple levels:
MAGNUS
> What the MoQ says here is that subjects and objects are created
> at each quality event at every level but we usually concentrate
> on either the subject or the object depending on the level
> involved.
DAVE
>I have proposed, based on primarily on Wilbur's work, that the most
>appropriate MoQ subject/object split is right down the middle of all the
>static levels. That all static patterns of value can be viewed as having
>an objective and subjective component.
Yes, yes and yes, but it's hardly new.
The idea is documented in the archive 3 years ago!!!!!
Guess who said this (20 May 1998),
Reference: http://www.moq.org/old_lilasquad/9805/0023.html
<<<
Pirsig hasn't really done away with the SO at all, but has incorporated
it into his MOQ. If we consider subject as the observer and object as
the observed (things that happen), Pirsig has created multiple
non-exclusive subjects. The observer observes at the molecular level, or
is an organism observing at the biological level, or a society observing
at the social level etc. Thus subject and object become relative terms.
Objectivity thus also becomes relative - (-: depending, of course, on
how you look at it :-).
>>>
Is this idea now generally acceptable to all participants, or is it restricted
to just the three of us?
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST