Hi Everyone
This month's topic asked:
> - Describe 'object' in terms of MOQ; which are its static parts, and
> which are its dynamic parts ? - Describe 'subject' in terms of MOQ;
> which are its static parts, and which are its dynamic parts ? -
> Describe the relation between subject and object in terms of MOQ,
> and show why the object-subject split is denied by MOQ.
and Jaap said after the last contributor had stepped down from the
soap box ;-)
> Thanks for the huge contributions this month, since I'm not only
> flying but even a real dutchman ;-) I had no time reading all
> responses, but I am very delighted with all the email I see.
> Some very short conclusions :
> 1) Since MOQ unites object and subject, the question slowly turns
> into:" what are the subjectisch and objectisch parts of Quality ? "
I would simply say that it does away with both subject and object.
Just as the modern cosmology did away with UP/DOWN in its
fundamental sense. OK, we go on speaking of up and down and
will do so about subjects and objects too. What are their limited
meaning in the MoQ??????
> 2) There are no subjects nor objects in MOQ - there's just one (!!)
> being: Quality.
Correct, there is no subject/object division. The fact that all is
VALUE or QUALITY is a given fact in the MoQ and nothing we
need harp on (sorry no gruffness intended)
> 3) I stay with the opinion that even a stone must have DQ components,
> taking conclusion 2) I dare to say that any animal (interacting with
> the stone) is such component.
The upper level "evaluates" the lower, but it as its DQ component?
Stone age man probably valued flint over granite and so on, but a
stone is no separate "pattern" at the inorganic level. According to
Pirsig it was the carbon atom that the "weak dynamic force"
hijacked for the "carrier" of biological value. If that is your "animal
interacting with matter"? OK.
> 4) Broadining conclusion 3) I would say that the stone I'm looking at
> is not some object, apart from me the subject, but that it is a part
> of MY anorganic level.
I don't think we should become so esoteric, we can safely keep
talking about objects and subjects. (re. up/down). According to
classical MoQ, inorganic and biological value can be regarded as
objects. Magnus and I are not happy with this, but what Magnus'
alternative is I haven't fully understood. Mine is that the Intellectual
level is the S/O division itself.
> It might like I'm wandering of the topic, but it are conclusions
> folowing the original question.
A littlle weandering must be allowed. I had hoped that Magnus -
upon returning from his "sommarlov" would have answered if he
agrees with Jonathan and 3WD about the subject/object divide
which according to the two runs vertical through the complete Q
level "building". This I anticipate in breathless suspense.
Hurry up
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST