Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 8 Jun 1998 17:52:24 +0100
Sun, 07 Jun 1998 22:44:21 +0000
Theo Schramm ended his letter to Jonathan thus:
> And you are, by your own admission, proposing a variant of SOM. You are
> relying upon an observer and an observed for Quality (meaning as you
> see it) to exist. But SOM isn't MOQ. Quality IS prior to subjects and
> objects - that's why its a metaphysics in its own right and not a branch
> of SOM.
Theo and Jonathan & Squad.
This and the rest of what Theo wrote answered Jonathan's objection to
the Dynamic Quality as primary so well that I drop my notes in the
wastebasket, and will only comment on Jonathan's last paragraph:
> DQ depends on the SO split for its DEFINITION - that is the definition
> we give it in the only language we know. Definition is not the same as
> creation!
If this means that you consider the SOM to be a prerequisite for
the MOQ I disagree, but if you mean that any new world view has to
build on the former I couldn't agree more.
As probably said before, I compare it to the period when the
new age of enlightenment took over the Western mind from Medieval
church. Bruno, Kepler, Copernicus and Gallileo launched their works
as theological treatises, and so they were, only the past has
re-interpreted them as scientists in disguise.
Even Newton of the seventeenth century considered a now
obscure theological book as his main work - not the "Principia"! We
are still SOM steeped and tend to think in its frame of reference so
even attacks on SOM will have to be tainted by its terms - except
for a little group who subscribe to the Lila Squad!!!
Bo
PS. Does Jonathan equalize the "Quality is experience" statement
with the subjective horn of the bullfight metaphor?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST