David M. 25 February you shared 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. That everything is based in quality experience is MOQ's premises and the "symbol/what's symbolised" distinction is intellectual value (along with all S/Os). But your: "must be a quality like wetness...." is an adjective, quality its supposed to be a noun. A stone IS inorganic quality not a piece of matter that HAS properties like specific weight, mineral composition, certain hardness ...etc. The latter is intellect's scientific knowledge. Your continued: "..whereas the symbol is simply like a word ..etc. Yes this is intellect's view of language an abstracted version of the real world. That the symbol/what's symbolized is an aggregate - one dependent on the other - is also true. "Between symbols and what they symbolise must be quality" sounds like the "Hot Stove" parable. Fair enough. > 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. Yes, the patterns falling into levels is due to their different static qualities. But "...continuing to see these (lower levels) as divisible into subjects and objects.." Who does that? Not me, my position is that only intellect sees experience as S/O-divided. > 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.... Phew, you sound like a scholastic about angles on pinpoints ;-). That intellect and society despise each other is plain, but neither knows the level context, they simply regard each other as immoral! The simplicity of the MOQ disappears in these intricacies > 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. Er ...... OK, > 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. There were money at the time before intellect, but people of old had no problem with its VALUE. Only with intellect and its S/O- did this "...objectively seen these banknotes are just paper and these coins just metal, the value is subjective" ... and so on. > 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. OK, here you probably says the same thing, but "understood quite objectively"? The MOQ's fundamental divide is the DQ/SQ one so it does not understand anything along the S/O template. I don't get your point. > 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. This smacks of Pirsig's method of "encasing" SOM, by making the two lower levels "objective" and the two upper "subjective", but you speak of patterns, not levels so I suspend further comment until I know. > 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. Ditto. Looking forward to your response. Bo 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/
