> [SA previously]
> I guess subject and object talk has historical
> hang-ups, and even
> trying to explain ourselves in this thread becomes
> loopy and difficult,
> I would say for one, simply by trying to explain
> ourselves by using
> subject/object (s/o). I get hung-up on the /
> between the s and o.
> [Ron]
> I think this is what happened to the MOQ , it got
> hung up on the / .
I was hung-up on the / way before I even knew the
MoQ existed. I meditated for years. Studies some
eastern philosophies. The MoQ can make a distinction
and recognize /, but SOM can't recognize /. SOM only
notices an s and/or an o - not /. SOM doesn't see
anything outside of an s and o - the / is not noticed
in SOM.
> [Ron]
> He does, SOM is an interpretation of static Quality.
> One he states was invented by the Greeks.
Ron, your rewriting 'What Pirsig says." Sorry,
but you need to show where Pirsig would say SOM is
static quality.
> [Ron]
> is zen cultural or is zen MOQ?
A culture is shared beliefs, values, and norms of
a society. Zen is the culture of a Zen society
(people that share Zen beliefs, values, and norms).
Zen is not MoQ, the MoQ is MOQ. I feel your somewhere
far, far, away.
> [Ron]
> Trying to explain an abstract concept in common
> language is rather
> difficult. I'm probably
> being interpreted as being caught up in a dualistic
> dilemma.
Yes, I see you caught-up in a dualistic dilemmia.
[Ron]
> I feel there is an area MOQ is
> overlooking by concentration on value alone.
What is the MoQ overlooking?
[Ron]
> I feel perhaps Pirsig takes it to a subjective
tilt...
Or maybe SOM took it to an objective tilt?
Pirsig puts forth a compromise. Your use of s or o is
confusing the MoQ.
[Ron]
> ...by positing that value comes before subjects and
> objects and subjects and objects can be
> dropped or seperated from value.
Where does the MOQ state s and o is separated
from value?
[Ron]
> Subjects and objects do not cause value.
I don't know who said this. Is this your
statement?
[Ron]
> Value does not cause subjects and objects.
I don't know who said this. Is this your
statement?
[Ron]
> They are one in the same.
Ah, but the MoQ takes the SOM even further, and
I'm not talking about the addition of dq. Dq is sq.
Sq is not SOM. That would be pointless to come up
with another philosophy, but it's the same as SOM and
hope nobody notices. This is way out there.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
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/
