I've been emersing myself in Bodvar's work on the SOL concept and
I have to say I'm with him. I believe as well as Ham, that how reality
is percieved is through Subject object perception. To percieve and
understand
any part of reality is to percieve it as subject and object. Even our
sensual recognition is based in symbol comprehension.
we are emersed in languge but also much deeper than imagined, language
is an out growth
of comprehension, language communicates this understanding.  I believe
Subject
Object perception is base awareness for all living organisms,I believe
instinct is built on it.

I used Mathmatics as a model for this phenomena citing the concept and
employment of the "limit"
as a proof of sorts for this concept of subject object perception.

"The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation but some
kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in the MOQ that
I know of that leads to this conclusion."
-Quote from Pirsig

I think Bo means that MOQ is an intellectual awareness of SO perception.

 The intellection of taking into account of how we understand
the universe. The paradox being we can't see the forrest through the
trees. Not just a greek
convention but a human condition, something the philosophies of the east
are well aquainted with.
It is the reason why the intellectual level can be interpreted to begin
with the organic level.
Here is where we suffer a language problem with how to classify and what
to call this awareness
of s/o perception. Bo then brings up the question shouldn't there be
another category within the 
intellectual level perhaps a subject object intellectual and a Quality
intellectual (for lack of 
any proper descriptive term) a transcendent intellectual level one in
which the awareness of the
subject object perception is taken into account when intellectualizing. 

I suspect the problem with grasping this concept is the fact that there
is no suitable 
conventional terminology for it so it kinda just enimatically floats
with terms like mysticism
and enlightenment for the lack of any deacent western terminology, so it
is not taken seriously.
how does one term an intellection which trancends common awareness of
perception without
sounding like a mystic? the problem is using a distinctive language
created from subject -object
experience to describe an infinite reality. this paradox happens because
anything outside this limited
perception is infinite and meaningless.

MOQ just may be a dynamic awareness freeing itself from a static
intellection of Subject object perception
and in that way Bo may be onto something.

-Ron







Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to