Hi Bo Some thoughts.
The distinction between symbol and what is symbolised surely needs to be based in quality experience according to the MOQ. So that what is symbolised must be a quality like wet or wetness, whereas the symbol is simply something like a sound or word or picture for 'wet'. When we use a number of associated qualities to talk about patterns that endure and call these objects then these may be symbolised but are always aggregates of qualities. Between symbols and the objects they sometimes symbolise must be the qualities of the MOQ. When the MOQ suggest that patterns can be seen as falling into a number of levels these too must be grounded in qualities and continuing to see these as divisable into subjective and objective patterns is misleading. When we consider some patterns as intellectual we are seeing that being able to recognise such patterns is only possible for someone experience such patterns in more than a simply social way, than someone concerned only with accepting what is important to the group and traditional for the group. When some patterns are seen as social we see that they can be understood in social terms that have no intellectual content. Biological patterns can be seen without the need to refer to either intellectual or social factors, and inorganic patterns can be understood without these or biological aspects to explain them. There is a sense of subjective and objective that is simply to understand a pattern with or without prejudice. In this sense patterns at all levels can be understood objectively. Money is understood only through cultural social/intellectual concepts but can be understood quite objectively in this sense. With prejudice understanding might refer to cultural factors that are subjective according to SOM. But for MOQ all patterns including cultural ones can be understood quite objectively -including any values involved too. Something less clear cut between SOM and MOQ is the status of patterns that belong to the person and may be individual and relatively unique. Such patterns may be seen as prejudicing understanding of patterns at all levels and are individually subjective in this sense. For SOM such prejudice is the height of subjective messiness and confusion. I wonder how the MOQ shouldlook at such patterns? I'd hope the MOQ would recognise the value rather than the threat that such individual difference presents. Regards David M 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/
