Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:38:26 +0100
Hi Anthony
I wrote:
>Any SPoV can be subject or object in any experience
>(Quality Event).
You replied:
>From the MOQ point of view there are no such things as
>subjects or objects.
And if you really want to be extreme about it, there's only Q.
(Hmm, anyone knows if there's a connection between MoQ
and Q from Star Trek TNG?)
Subject and object are just common and usable terms for
the two SPoVs in a QE. Do you suggest that we scrap'em
and use other terms? I think it's practical to use separate
terms for the two, exchangeable but separate.
>
>Magnus goes on to say:
>
>> There must still be a subject in the
>> Quality Event of two colliding atoms. Both atoms are not
>> objects. Both atoms are subjects from it's point of
>> view. On the other hand, when you hear a new idea (an
>> intellectual SPoV), you probably consider yourself to be
>> the subject and the idea to be the object, right?
>
>Wrong. What you`ve written here Magnus is a very good
>example of looking at the MOQ from within the SOM prison.
>This is not to say it is easy for anyone, including myself,
>brought up using subjects and objects, to break out of it.
>
>In the above passage, from the MOQ point-of-view (and
>remember this is the system we are trying to establish here
>not some type of SOM from which your comments are derived)
>the atoms, "You" and the new "Idea" are the following:
>
>1. Both the colliding atoms are inorganic static patterns
> of Value,
>
>2. "You" are a collection of inorganic, organic, social and
> intellectual static patterns of Value and
>
>3. The "idea" is an intellectual static pattern of
> value. (Moreover, keep in mind that there has to be
> another person, directly or indirectly, where this new
> idea comes from, it just doesn`t appear in thin air out
> on its own.
I agree completely, but I can't repeat that in each and every
post. Atoms, persons and ideas are, like subject and object,
usable terms. We all know what these terms mean in MoQese.
There's a difference between being submerged in SOM and
using practical SOM terms.
>Doug makes the related point "that in classical SOM
>science assumes, objectively, that an object
>may be isolated from its environment (while) ...MoQ shows
>us that static patterns of value (SPoVs) are co-within
>Dynamic Quality. SPoVs are inseparable from: DQ and other
>SPoVs in DQ".
>
>This is worth repeating in conjunction with what I`ve
>written above as the SOM myth (which you are perpetuating)
>that an observer may objectively observe an object in
>isolation has to be laid to rest before you can
>understand the MOQ properly.
I agree again, except the perpetuating part. I said that each
atom is a subject from its point of view. That implies that each
atom is an object from the other's point of view, hence not
isolated.
>
>On Thurs, 12 Mar 1998, Platt Holden wrote:
>
>> From the beginning of the LS, Bo has maintained that the
>> Intellectual level is SOM (rationality, language,
>> science). It's gradually seeped into my mind that Bo is
>> right about this. SOM is the current mental framework
>> and means of communication in which we operate from day
>> to day, enabling us to "make a living" and enjoy "the
>> good life."
>
>Again, following the paragraphs I`ve written above:
>
>1. There is no direct correlation between subjects &
> objects with static value patterns.
Yes there is. Each QE is the origin of a subject and an object.
Subject and object are synonymous with SPoV, except that
being a subject also means that the observation is done from
the subject's point of view.
>2. One of the main tenets of the MOQ is to replace SOM.
> There is no need to re-introduce subjects and objects
> within the MOQ and to do so will eventually lead to the
> re-emergence of all those SOM problems Pirsig seeked to
> avoid/solve with his metaphysics in the first place.
The only change we really need in the semantics of the words
subject and object is that the subject can never be isolated
from the observed object.
>On Thurs, 12 Mar 1998, Ken Clark wrote:
>
>> The MOQ (in my mind) has existed since the beginning. The
>> question of whether it existed before the Big Bang or came after is
>> something I am not prepared to hazard a guess on. That would make a great
>> deal of difference
>
>On Thurs, 12 Mar 1998, Donny replied:
>
>> What? A metaphysical theory has existed from the
>> begining? How could that be? A theory is something used
>> to explain a phenomina, or to answer a question. Can you
>> have a theory w/o having anybody around to do the
>> questioning or the theorizing or even to experience the
>> phenoumina?
>
>Too right Donny. Ken, wake-up!!! The thought of this
>one-mile rock hitting the Earth is obviously doing things
>to your mind. Re-read chapter three in ZMM where Pirsig
>mentions the theory of gravity.
I think you're being a bit unfair here. I can't speak for Ken
so I'll just speak for myself. Pirsig couldn't find another answer
to the puzzle of when gravity started because he didn't have
the MoQ in ZMM. With the MoQ, it's quite clear that gravity
is inorganic value, so it's been around since the creation of
the inorganic level.
About the MoQ then, the theory (the intellectual SPoV)
hasn't been around for long. Just as the theory of gravity
hasn't. SOM can't find a criteria for existence of gravity
and in despair, it mixes up the law of gravity (intellectual)
with gravity (inorganic) and answers a completely different
question.
Pirsig himself explains events in the past - the first
biological patterns on earth, the first societies - in MoQ
terms. Otherwise, all we can ever say in MoQ terms
would be about events after 1991.
Magnus
>
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST