> [Ron]
> I think this is what happened to the MOQ , it got hung up on the / .
[SA]
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]
exactly / is value.
> [Ron]
> He does, SOM is an interpretation of static Quality.
> One he states was invented by the Greeks.
[SA]
Ron, your rewriting 'What Pirsig says." Sorry, but you need to show
where Pirsig would say SOM is static quality.
[Ron]
static quality Interpreted as SOM
> [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]
but they do share any of the same beliefs values and norms do they not?
why then does Pirsig get involved
with Zen intitutes.
[Ron> I feel there is an area MOQ is
> overlooking by concentration on value alone.
[SA]
What is the MoQ overlooking?
[Ron]
subjects and objects are directly relational to value and can not be
separated.
[Ron]
> I feel perhaps Pirsig takes it to a subjective
tilt...
[SA]
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]
is it? SOM does take it to an objective tilt and you are right in
stating that.
[Ron]
> ...by positing that value comes before subjects and
> objects and subjects and objects can be
> dropped or seperated from value.
[SA]
Where does the MOQ state s and o is separated
from value?
[Ron]
when it states that to percieve all as one in value SOM must be dropped.
Dan says this is easy.
[Ron]
> They are one in the same.
[SA]
Ah, but the MoQ takes the SOM even further,
[Ron]
yes it does, arguably too far.
[SA]
I'm not talking about the addition of dq. Dq is sq.
[Ron]
I agree
[SA]
Sq is not SOM.
[Ron]
This seems to be the topic of the debate. I invite any and all
responses to this question: is SQ SOM? static patterns of value
means valuing static patterns, what are static patterns but objects
valued by the subject.
[SA]
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.
[Ron]
I don't want to come up with another philosophy, but if I feel
that MOQ has some holes in it I'm going to point them out.
I realize this is way out there, and risk being branded some
kind of heretic but I think I have a point.
Not like what I think means a damn in hell to anyone anyway.
Thanks for indulging my curiosity....
you ought to at least check out what Dan had to say about the whole
thing
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/SOLAQI.htm
very interesting...I wonder what made him change his tune about it. He
never explained that.
Thanks SA.
hang in there with me, this is a very interesting topic.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________
____________
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/
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/
