SA: Grammar was from fourth grade on, a dead end for
me, but I'm trying. When you say noun, adjective, and
pronoun, etc... these concepts do not come very
naturally to my understanding. I've always written
the way I felt, so to speak, and many a times this
counter the way grammar rules are, but I didn't know
any better. It was about a certain meaning I was
trying to convey that was important to me. So, here
we go again. Your patient, so, I think you'll stick
with me on this, hopefully until I get what your
saying.
> Ron:
> By leaving DQ/SQ free to interpret nouns...
SA: First off, have we decided what dq and sq are to
take that next step to interpret a noun? For some
time on this forum, I don't remember when, I defined
dynamic as change and static as still or unchanging.
How I would further define change is that change is
something that can't keep still enough to be defined.
Another way to put change is 'suddeness'. Still or
unchanging one may not have as much trouble
understanding. The quality of both of these, static
and dynamic, doesn't allow either one of them to
happen in isolation. Thus, it is never completely
static and never completely dynamic. Respectively,
the first would be the universe 0 Kelvin and the
latter a flicker that would have been done and over
with by now. I still can see how a path can be drawn
to these, sq and dq, lead to undefined and defined,
but this further defining of how I've noticed static
and dynamic probably adds a more lengthy sight of the
two. With static and dynamic interacting one might
say they pull and tug each other, by the monism
quality being the interchanger, and that's why static
isn't fully still and dynamic isn't fully change or in
other words, nothing in this universe can be fully
defined as still or change only.
Ron:
> ...where Subject/object had done
> Previously, it opens up an entirely different
> conception of experience.
SA: The importance, I would say, lies in the monism
of Quality being the interchanger of the two, so no
extremes are settled upon, for extremes are
non-existent. This is why a complete separation of s
and o in which SOM tries to say happens is false.
Ron:
> Nouns then have an expression of happening rather
> than static objects or
> subjects.
SA: Yes. Everything is an event. Everything is an
experience, but an experience not overlapped by the
presence of a subject or the presence of an object.
The experience is this universe. I'm not experience
this universe as the universe is. A rock is not
experiencing the universe as the universe. Everything
together is the experience of the universe, though.
Ron:
> Descriptors of experience are descriptors of mind.
SA: Yes, sq and dq does turn inward, too. I'm
referring to subjectivity and objectivity which are
only limited states of how the mind works. These,
subjectivity and objectivity, do not discuss their
processes and interactions with subjects and objects -
not their processes and interactions. They just lean
the weight of experience either on the subject or on
the object, nothing about the process between.
Ron:
> That is why I say
> Grammar dictates intellectual thought.
> If we, by Pirsigs suggestion, change the rules of
> grammar we change the
> way we intellectualize.
SA: Ok. am I coming across in accord with your logic
yet?
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
