Ron prev: > You were stating that MoQ does not fall into the same > Category as SOM in regard to static intellectual patterns. > I disagreed. > I interpreted you as saying that > Rocks, computers and slips of paper do not fall into the > Category as thoughts and concepts that they are objective facts.
Magnus: Almost. But with the crucial difference that they are not quite objective facts. All static patterns are involved in quality events, and in a quality event there is always one subject and one object. When a rock falls onto another rock, one is subject and the other is subject. When an amoeba feels the scent of food, the amoeba is likely to be categorized as the subject and the scent is the object. But that's just the SOM way of seeing it, the MoQ says that the roles can just as well be reversed. Actually, I haven't thought much about why (and if) we need to keep calling the parties in a quality event subject and object, since the difference is unclear. They are simply equal parties in the event. Ron: This is a good start. Why are we discussing this in terms of subjects and objects? When we shift to patterns of value things come around. If you concede that physical reality is patterns of value then it stands To reason that it is the human mind which interprets these patterns As rocks and amoebas. When Pirsig explains that everything is an analogy I take this to include all human perception as well, not simply language. You seem to distinguish between immediate experience and intellect as if They are separate and unrelated functions. I feel they are separate process but of a single system that of the human mind the interpreter of patterns. 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/
