Hello everyone >From: MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic >Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:25:08 -0400 > >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?
Hi Marsha We experience Dynamic Quality all the time. We cover it up by intellectualizing and categorizing in attempts to answer the unanswerable. But it's here all the time. Right here! No need to go to the edge of madness. Isn't that what the MOQ is telling us? Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Dan PS As foolish as me. 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/
