> [SA previously]
> 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.
ok.
> [Ron]
> static quality Interpreted as SOM
Who came up with this interpretation?
> > [Ron]
> > is zen cultural or is zen MOQ?
[SA previously]
> 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.
Yes, Zen and the MoQ are a shared culture, but the
MOQ has a different way to explain reality. Zen
doesn't talk about intellectual level, and static
patterns, etc...
> [Ron> I feel there is an area MOQ is
> > overlooking by concentration on value alone.
> [SA previously]
> What is the MoQ overlooking?
> [Ron]
> subjects and objects are directly relational to
> value and can not be separated.
I really don't understand this need for this. Ok,
s and o are not separated due to value. But this
doesn't say much more than that, does it? Why the
need to hang onto s and o interpretation? I've heard
the baby and the bathwater syndrome, but the MOQ goes
a step further and explains reality without falling
back on SOM. S/O can be understood using MOQ, but to
fall back on S/O for the complete understanding of the
MOQ takes away from what the MOQ tried to do. The MoQ
discusses the events and the subjects and objects
without having to boil the events down to subject this
and object that. The MoQ talks about events in life
that are first hand, music, vacations, working hard,
etc... To go on and on about s here and o there is
like using math. Everything is boiling down to
numbers in math. I prefer to notice a tree not as a
mathematical equation, but as the tree is.
> [Ron]
> > I feel perhaps Pirsig takes it to a subjective
> tilt...
>
> [SA previously]
> 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.
I say confusing the MOQ due to the MOQ dropped
discussing s/o a long time ago and moved onto another
perspective.
> [SA previously]
> 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.
I don't see the need to continually discuss s/o,
so I'll pass for now. It's as I said to Ham. It's
pointless arguing his thesis with the MoQ for they are
both philosophical arguments, ones that belief, a
persuation would have to occur to like one or the
other. Ok, so you like eating apples, and I like
grapefruits better. For me to argue about what your
taste buds prefer gets us nowhere. I wouldn't mind
seeing what others have to say about this question of
yours. I've been through this before, with Bo, and it
just seems to go in circles and I'm not yet prepared
for that kind of discussion at the moment.
> [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.
See above to what I mean.
[Ron]
> I realize this is way out there, and risk being
> branded some
> kind of heretic but I think I have a point.
Ok, hold onto your point as you will. No problem
with that.
[Ron]
> Not like what I think means a damn in hell to anyone
> anyway.
What kind of emotion comes with this statement. Is
it frustration? I've just discussed with you for some
time, and I rarely take the same conversation too far,
especially when the mental well runs dry on my part.
[Ron]
> 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.
I'll wait to read what others have to say. My
mind's well is dry at the moment so I'll need to wait
for a moment. Baby's crying anyways... Gotta go see
what's going on.
thanks,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
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/
