-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heather Perella Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] WHY MoQ IS PARALYzED
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: You're the one who is patient SA, plus you are interested enough In what I have to say to take the time to understand it, I Appreciate that. I was never big on English and grammar either But when I was digging for evidence to support my claim to Bo About SOM not being the only intellectual pattern, I began to Realize by what I was reading that subject/object was built Right into our language, no wonder it is so embedded in our thinking, It makes up our vocabulary! Sentences are based around nouns, they Are the stars of the show and the sentence structure is all about THEM. Our basic sentence structure works on SVO (subject verb object) Ex. Ron eats cheese. Plus nouns in English have abstract/concrete Meaning. I found this out when I stumbled upon a Chinese logical Paradox "When a white horse is not a horse" it is a paradox in Chinese because the Chinese do not make the abstract/concrete distinction In their nouns but we do, consequently when the paradox is translated to English is ceases to be a paradox. Sort of like S/O to them, they do not see the mind matter Situation as a paradox because they understand it as passive/ Active thus the MoQ is no big deal to them. I thought to Myself that I stumbled onto something huge in our understanding Of MOQ and how it relates to us. Please read these links for a better Understanding, they are not long but deliver the situation in Greater detail. Take you a couple of minutes to read both And would aid greatly in understanding where I'm coming From. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_white_horse_is_not_a_horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary/secondary_quality_distinction > 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? Ron: That's exactly what Pirsig is proposing with the DQ/SQ concept. This is THE step. SA: 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: Now you are intellectualizing DQ/SQ through S/O logic. They are not two separate opposing forces interacting Per say, We can understand them in this fashion but the Pirsig Stresses that these are patterns of experience. How we Conceptualize is directly related to the grammatical form of the noun in a sentence. This is so natural that we do not give it A second thought. Ron prev: > ...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: Right on, I wouldn't say false but definitely less accurate in regard to experience. 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. Ron: Ahhh here the knot, SQ and DQ are nothing but inward Distinctions for experience even they do not exist outside, That is the fallacy of SOM. It's why we get confused too. 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? Ron: I love conversing with you SA, I think if we come together In this understanding it would open up new possibilities In MoQ discussions. ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ 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/ 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/
