At 07:58 PM 8/15/2007, Dan wrote:
>Hello everyone
>
> >From: MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
> >Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:30:12 -0400
> >
> >At 09:47 PM 8/14/2007, Dan wrote:
> >
> > > >>
> > > >>[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.
> >
> >Hi Dan,
> >
> >This is interesting. I think of direct perception as static/dynamic
> >rather than pure dynamic. While it is true that direct perception is
> >experience without being filtered through thoughts (social &
> >intellectual patterns), such experience is still filtered through
> >biological patterns (sight, taste, hearing, etc.). Isn't our system
> >of sight a biological static pattern of value?
>
>Hi Marsha
>
>Good point. Of course we're linked to reality via our biological senses. And
>of course the MOQ tells us that all our perceptions are colored by culture
>as well. Yet when Robert Pirsig talks of direct perception I think he is
>pointing to the cutting edge of experience... the split second prior to
>intellectualization when all is fresh and new. The hot stove analogy comes
>to mind. It's only common sense to attribute the leaping off to biological
>instinct but I think what Mr. Pirsig is driving at lies deeper. 'It' is
>masked by biological patterns to which we're accustomed. I think it's the
>same with our system of sight. We are so accustomed to sight we forget what
>a miracle it really is, how Dynamic. It is only later that we categorize and
>intellectualize that Dynamic process into those static patterns of value to
>which we're accustomed.
>
>Thoughts?
Hi Dan,
Yes, the cutting edge and out of our minds is probably as close as we
can get to experiencing the Dynamic (Nothingness, Emptiness). That
would be very dynamic, a mighty accomplishment, a purer experience, a
miracle, or even madness, considering our attachment to thought. It
would be closer to the Dynamic than anything we could imagine. But
still, what does 'edge' imply? What are we if not static
patterns? It once dawned on me that to that question there is no
answer, never was an answer, never will be an answer. MU
How foolish am I?
Marsha
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/
