> [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.
[SA]
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]
O.k., I'll try to explain it in MOQ terms, I think we differentiate
dynamic into static before
any preconceptions take place. I feel static awareness and static
intellect are two differing
processes, I feel static awareness is differentiated else it would not
be experienced and nothing
new would be learned. I feel if the intellectual differntial were the
only differential then
there would be nothing but experiential loops. Taken even further I ask
how did these intellectual
preconceptions even form without pre-intellectual differentualism.
[Ron]
> I ask how does cultural values and norms conjure up from nothing,
> perceptual reality?
[SA]
They weren't present, and now they are. Is this what your asking?
[Ron]
affirmative.
[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]
By how pre-intellect is explained it suggests just that.
[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]
correct, I thought this was Pirsigs aim.
[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]
It did at first then got sucked in again when Pirsig placed
static perception exclusivly in the realm of ideas then
projecting a moral universe. I understand the method. I understand
why. I just think it is very easily misinterpreted as an objective
concept, Giving rise to a subjective idealism.
[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.
[SA]
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.
[Ron]
I think we can not discuss or experience anything without referring to
the static in comprehensable terms.
This is the point. Slice static quality anyway you like, it still
reffers to distinction. One can not
communicate other than in distinctive terms, so discussing the MOQ will
allways be one of S/O trappings.
Quality is a subjective experience that is incommunicable, to express
Quality in pure MOQ terms
is to experience not discuss. Pure action is pure MOQ , intellection and
language will forever be tied
to SOM. Some cultures emphasise SOM less than others but they all
utilize it. Western culture tends
to lean heavy on SOM on the objective particularly and on true false
logic on top of that. Right there
are three distintions of SOM lumped into one term.
[SA]
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.
[Ron]
Likewise, thanks for sticking with me also, I feel we are on to
something.
woods,
SA
and the sky around them,
-Ron
________________________________________________________________________
____________
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/
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/
