> [SA previously]
> You notice which points that I mention I'm not
> sure about. Explanation would help. I'm still not
convinced
> that s and o is necessary to explain reality,
though.
> [Ron]
> I venture to propose that subject object
distinction, or distinction of
> any kind IS experience. If no distinction, no
experience. I
> understand Pirsig as saying s/o distinction was
invented by the
> greeks. I tend to disagree. I understand Pirsig as
saying that
> immediate experience is non differentiated. I tend
to disagree.
> I maintain to sense anything experientially it must
be differentiated > or else we would sense nothing at
all. A blank.
Ron, I agree, but the MOQ doesn't use strict s/o
understanding to differentiate. The MOQ
differentiates by using static levels called
inorganic, etc... Therefore, immediate experience is
undifferentiated, but then we can differentiate with a
static quality understanding that places experience as
either/and intellectual, social, etc... Geology, a
well-honored way to differentiate rocks is still
trying to differentiate the processes that geology
studies. What was not there, thus, undifferentiated,
when discovered by geologists becomes differentiated
and perceived to have been on the inorganic level all
along.
[Ron]
> I ask how does cultural values and norms
> conjure up from nothing, perceptual reality?
They weren't present, and now they are. Is this
what your asking?
[Ron]
> by what I understand Pirsig is saying, the universe
was created by
> the greeks when SOM was invented.
"...the universe was created by the greeks..."?
[Ron]
> I think s/o distinction and SOM are different
> aspects of the same phenomena. I think exclusive
> focus on value is just as
> limited as exclusive focus on objects or exclusive
> focus on subjects or
> exclusive focus on subjects and objects.
ok.
[Ron]
> when the three are in harmony and balanced they are
> all equally real.
> objective reality is real, subjective experience is
> real and Quality
> that binds, envelopes, creates and destroys is real.
> they are one.
I understand you see Quality as the balance
between s and o. This has me perceive that you
believe Quality is a separate third entity (so to
speak), as you state, "when the three..." I see this
balance as s and o without having to delve into making
s and o exclusive entities, thus, by-passing what
happens when somebody tries to make s and o exclusive
unto themselves.
[Ron]
> distinction is experience. experience is quality.
> quality is distinction.
I agree. Distintion is static quality.
Experience is sq and dq. Static quality is
distinction. dq is sq, thus, dq is distinct and
nondistinct, but to make it more clear it is said sq
is distinct and dq is nondistinct and quality is thus
distinct and nondistinct. What is quality then, thus
being both distinct and nondistinct? That is forever
the question.
[Ron]
> SOM omitts value and is limited
> MOQ diminishes s/o and elevates value and I feel is
> limited also
ok
[Ron]
> when value manifests itself in thought it is
> subjective in nature.
> to then place this subjective manifestation before s
> o
> reveals a subjectivly moral objective universe. and
> you have
> SOM turned inside out with the focus on the
> subjective in lieu
> of the objective.
I believe the MoQ by-passes this trap.
[Ron]
> If Pirsig truly dropped SOM then he would not have
> gone on
> to propose how atoms prefer other atoms or how
> betterness
> drives the universe. He would have left it with
> subjects
> objects Quality are one. This one is the source of
> all.
> every last bit. this one is undefineable. but it is
> usefull
> to view it as subjects objects and value in it's
> balance.
> this balance being the metaphysics of quality.
I believe trying to incorporate SOM within MOQ is
to leave the trappings of SOM intact, thus, why I say
discussing reality by relying upon s's and o's
confuses me. I need more and more explanation to get
around hang-ups and such. Yet, I see how the MOQ is
seemingly creating a hang-up for you, but I see these
hang-ups still in place for you due to the continual
use of s's and o's to explain reality. It seems to be
degenerating the dialogue. I'm sure if we continued
to explain each other we would get passed these
hang-ups and I would understand what your saying more
and more, but I really believe the MOQ has already
by-passed these hang-ups that's why ZMM is different
from Lila, and Ant's explanations are even more clear,
at times, than Lila. The MoQ is ridding hang-ups even
as we speak.
thanks.
I'm enjoying this discussion, and I feel better now.
I was having a rough week at work, thus why I was
having difficulty thinking in more previous posts on
this topic; and why I said my mind's well is drying
up. Thanks for sticking with me.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
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/
