HAM: I must confess that the concept of "static quality" has always eluded me. So, "MOQ recognizes differentiation in the form of the identification of SQ" is meaningless to me. Could you restate this more simply, without the 'SQ's and 'SOM's?
Hi Ham This is how I see it, at least one aspect. Everything we know is derived from experience and our thoughts about experience. There's alot of flux and change and we are not detached observers because everything we experience matters to us, we value it as good or bad, sublime or horrific, pleasant or itchy. We can also try tomake some sense of this experience by recognising patterns. This is what we mean by SQ, things that can be re-cognised, repeats, patterns, identifiables, namables. Now SOM says wecan devide these patterns into those you can kick, i.e. things, and subjective patterns that only exist as human 'flavours' or tinctures of experience. Science goes so far as to see only object-like stuff as real and tries to explain all experience in objective rather than subjective terms. MOQ says this SOM division of experience is useful but not fundmental and there is another way to loom at these patterns that is at least equally valid. MOQ says, & I think it has a good point and I don't see it as something frozen and owned by Robert Pirsig because it needs further development, that we should see all patterns as having equal ontological status and do not see object experiences as more real than subjective patterned experiences -they are all experiences. MOQ says split these patterns into 4 (I'd say four is the big division and these 4 can all be subdivided) levels. Inorganic and organic (which cover the patterns SOM calls objects) then social and intellectual patterns (that cover the patterns SOM calls subjects). So experience covers four big levels of SQ, all equally real. But there is more to experience than SQ and all that is not patterned and is creative/destructive is DQ. I'd add that there is more to this cosmos than what we directly experience and here reason and imagination have a special role to play, but its all still experience even if of patterns and possibilities that we can never experience as actual. How else could we reason and create and imagine? Any help? Bye for now David M 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/
