Jaap, MF Finally, a good old metaphysical discussion! Bo will be glad.... Jaap: My first thought was that if the static-dynamic split is an other way to split the same group fenomena befor classified with the subject-object split, then (according to geometrical intuition) these "lines" should cut each other ((assuming they are independent)). Thus I feel that both SOM elements, the object and the subject, should cross the static-dynamic split and consist of both a dynamic and a static part. Do you, foci, agree on this assumption or are there for instance objects that are entirely static, or subjects that are entirely dynamic ? (Please don't say there aren't subjects or objects at all - the point is to reach MOQ from SOM.) Marco: As long as we stay within a SOM viewpoint, I Agree. When I look at a stone, the SOM Subject is Me; the SOM Object is the stone. In this sense me and the stone are SOM "things", and all SOM things must have a dynamic and a static part. Jaap: > - Describe 'object' in terms of MOQ; which are its static parts, and > which are its dynamic > parts ? One problem for me is that when Pirsig unfolds the four levels, he seems to think of the levels in relation only to the human subjects. But what would you say about for instance a stone, a pattern of the anorganic level. Its static part looks obvious: its fysical continuation in space and time and its reproduction of the laws of fysics. But what about the dynamic part, going from the anorganic level in the dynamical direction you end up at the biological level - but the stone is not a organism, for it is a anorganic pattern, right foci ? So where does its DQ come from ? Marco: I'd say that when we study the stone as "object" all that we do is to create the stone as intellectual pattern. We "define" a part of reality and call it stone. Of course there is a stone, out there. I'm just meaning we can't know what it is exactly. That is, we can know accurately what there is within the boundaries of the object we create (especially using the very objective SOMish science); but we necessarily ignore what we have left ouside the object (especially, its interaction with the world). The SOMish object is what we know of it. So I don't think that "every level is already a mixture of SQ and DQ" as levels are of static patterns only and have sense only in a MOQ. The stone as thing is not the same as the stone as object. In a MOQ, we have to surpass this vision and see that "me" and the "stone" are the same during the Quality Event of perception. I will be not the same after having perceived the stone, and the stone will be not the same. We have "Valued each other" (are you there JoVo?). What the stone is, and what I am, depends on the infinite flow of interaction the stone and me have with all universe... in nature, as Jonathan says. So, IMO, the static part of the stone is all that makes it being stable. Its moleculas don't run away in every directions: this is its static inorganic value. If it's very big with a hole (a cave), it can be used as shelter, and it's biologic value (for an animal) will be static (until an earthquake will destroy it). If it's a diamond gem, its social value will be quite statically high, depending on the market fluctuations. If I study its composition, the formula I get (the object!) will be a static intellectual representation of the stone. On the other hand, its dynamic side is that it can be valued by me, or that I can be valued by it. Think of the marble stone Michelangelo used for his David, and it's clear what I'm meaning. After the dynamic artistic event, both the marble and Michelangelo were not anymore as before. Jaap: > - Describe 'subject' in terms of MOQ; which are its static parts, and > which are its dynamic > parts ? The Dynamic and static parts of the subject seem to be more obvious, for on one hand you have the patterns at several levels, building a consistent and continu individual, and on the other hand you have DQ, randomly chanching the patterns and protecting against determinism. But then again, according to SOM philosofy, the subject doesn't strictly need a fysical body; the subject is more some random collection of feelings and intellect. In short, the subject is nothing more than the observing mind. Of this mind I would propose the identity as a basic static part, folowing MOQ you can argue that this identity is rooted in a social level (for most people true, according to sociology), the social level in turn rooted in a biologic level etc. . As Dynamic part I propose things like fantasy, inspiration etc. . This I can work with without much problems - but note that this is a MOQ approach crossing the borders of the SOM subject. Marco: Well, even the subject is an intellectual pattern we create when we analyze our patterns. Inevitably, we can consider only a part of the infinite patterns we are composed of, and call it "subject". Really, this "subject", this "self" is a simplification of reality, just like the stone object is. Again, of course, there is really a human being typing this mail, right now. But it is impossible for me to know exactly who he is. Anyway, it is clear that "I" am composed of a static part: moleculas, life, rituals, self-consciousness (just as examples). But the patterns I'm composed of are not "mine". My carbon atoms change continuously; my biological characteristics are the same of my parents in great part; my rituals are not very different from the rituals of my neighbors; and my ideas can be shared as well..... I agree when you write that fantasy and inspiration are dynamic.... but if I analyze fantasy, and write a book about fantasy, well it becomes a static object! More simply, I'd say that my dynamic part is what makes me able to evaluate all there is (me included) and be evaluated by all there is. Jaap: > - Describe the relation between subject and object in terms of MOQ, and > show why the > object-subject split is denied by MOQ. It is not denied. It is replaced (in this I agree with Matt completely). The MOQ shows that subject and object are merely intellectual patterns. This was the 'cause IMO for the P. mental breakdown in ZAMM. Without the MOQ solid ground, showing that subjects and objects are *illusions* is a trouble. Then, thanks to the MOQ, P. has replaced those illusions with a more inclusive description of reality. tks for your attention Marco MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
