Ron to Krimel: 'I don't believe MoQ "rejects" SOM just the assumptions of absolutes it tends to be predicated on.'
Andre: Yes, Ron, you are correct. The MoQ does not reject a subject/object (scientific) analysis/investigation, because his has proven to be incredibly useful. But the MoQ does reject the 'M' part i.e that subjects and objects constitute reality AND THAT THAT IS THE WHOLE OF REALITY.. This is what Bodvar and Platt have been saying all along. A subject/object approach is useful in certain circumstances, depending on what you want to do, what you are investigating/ interpreting.Similar to the analogy Pirsig uses in Lila: 'A map with the North Pole at the center is confusing at first, but it's every bit as correct as a Mercator map. In the Arctic its the only map to have.... . The Metaphysics of Quality can explain subject-object relationships beautifully but...a subject-object metaphysics can't explain values worth a damn'' . That is why the MoQ 'provides a better set of coordinates with which to interpret the world than does a subject-object metaphysics because it is more inclusive. It explains more of the world and it explains it better. (Lila p103). And the latter refers to the 'M' part of course. For what it is worth. Andre 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/
