Hello everyone >From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic >Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:13:10 -0400 > > > >[Dan] >There are many ways of perceiving reality. Subject object metaphysics is >a >high quality idea, nothing more. > >[Ron] >Dan, >I am having difficulties thinking of any alterior perceptions of >physical reality >short of insanity and/or hallucenations.
Dan: I'm unsure what you mean by "alterior." > >[Marsha] > I agree with Dan. I think of it as all being Quality, there is the > known (sq) and the unmanifest (DQ). The known, or static quality, is > relational and everchanging. The MOQ is a more elegant, higher > quality idea than SOM. > >[Ron] >Exactly, staticly percieved physical reality is Relational,which implies >value. >the relational value of subjects to objects, I do not see how the term >relation is comprehensable >in any other form. I agree, MOQ places focus on the value relationship >not the >subjects and objects themselves. SQ is this distinction, while DQ is the >incomprehensible >infinite (energy?). While all is DQ, SQ represents the s/o value >relation that is percieved. Dan: I would say static quality represents value. Perception is Dynamic. > >[Dan] >If "sensual recognition is based on symbol comprehesion" then it should >be no problem to tell me the taste of watermelon. > >[Ron] >To me understanding and comprehension does not allways translate to >communicative language. this is >why I feel it is a base function, somehow I think a living creature must >have some sort of comprehension,however basic, to experience phenomenal >reality, I mean must'nt there be some sort >of ability to comprehend "betterness" in order to choose it in a value >relation? if not then its back >to randomness percieved as being assembled in value formations only for >the sheer fact that it >is static and percievable. Either way it is the shifting of focus in a >s/o value structure. Dan: Subjects and objects are convenient shorthand for static quality patterns of value. Drop the s/o focus and value becomes primary. > >[Dan] >I asked my cat Goedel about this but he did not answer. Granted he's a >bit reticent at times yet I have come to believe he is not now nor will >he ever be an intellectual creature. Since Bo states SOM is intellect, I >doubt Goedel is operating from a subject object perspective. > >[Ron] >throw an object at Goedel or place some food out for him, if he avoids >the object then comes to his food >bowl and eats the food, I'd say he is operating in a subject object >perspective. Dan: I would say he's operating from a value perspective. > >[Dan] > Once a person realizes there are no subjects and objects then there is >only Dynamic awareness >of static quality patterns of value. > >[Ron] >but is'nt SOM dynamic awareness of static quality patterns of value? Dan: No. SOM is awareness of subject and object. >and >is'nt realizing something >an intellection not an experiential perception of reality like say >hallucenations or insanity? Dan: How can you tell the difference? >is pirsig correct? are the only ones who do truly experience a reality >other than subject object >distinction what we would term insane? Dan: Please provide a quote. >would'nt then the TRUE MOQer be >the ones in the padded cells? >is this a metaphysics of culturally percieved madness? is this the >problem, once you leave the realm >of reference, how can you use refferential terms? they could only serve >to confuse. refferring to >concepts that have no s/o relational value. that which has no relational >value is percieved as >meaningless is'nt it? Dan: In my opinion LILA was written in an effort to provide a reference. The MOQ provides terms with which we may form agreements. When others go off on their own tangents (like Bo's SOL) then confusion results. I took the time to answer your post as it seems I am partially responsible for promulgating it. >Thanks to everyone who has responded, I find this most interesting. You're welcome. And thank you too. Dan 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/
