Quoting David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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?
Well said, David M. IMO an accurate summary of MOQ principles. Thanks. Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
