[MD] grmbl

[Mary]

Hello Andre,

Like the MoQ, subjects and objects can be understood in different ways.  The
beauty of the MoQ is that they all work. 

In the end, there is no difference between a rock and an idea.  Both are
static patterns of value.


Mary

- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-
> bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:43 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] grmbl
> 
> Mary to Andre:
> 
> I don't think Subjects and Objects are divided up according to their
> position in the hierarchy.
> 
> Andre:
> Hi Mary, you are rejecting Mr. Pirsig's MOQ then?
> 
> Mary:
> A subject is the thing doing the thinking and an
> object is the thing thought about.  Objects could be rocks, other
> people,
> intellectual concepts, social agreements, the Easter Bunny, or the idea
> of
> the MoQ. From your perspective, you will always be the subject.
> Everything
> that is 'not you' will always be the object - and sometimes, if you are
> thinking about yourself, you even become your own 'object' of inquiry.
> 
> Andre:
> Sounds like all your experience is in the S/O form Mary and this
> appears to be part of the 'talking past eachother' I was referring to
> with Platt. The very basis of the MOQ suggests that this is not the
> case and there is no empirical basis for this.
> 
> 'The whole idea that Quality can create objects seems very wrong.But we
> see subjects and objects as reality for the same reason we see the
> world right-side up although the lenses of our eyes actually present it
> to our brains upside down. We get so used to certain patterns of
> interpretation we forget the patterns are there'.
> 
> Within the MOQ values are central. They are not 'outside of experience
> that logical positivism limits itself to. They are the essence of this
> experience.Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or
> objects'.
> 
> 'This value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any 'self' or
> any 'object' to which it might later be assigned'.
> 
> 'There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can
> perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is,
> in part, the result of our history and current pattern of values' (LILA
> CH.9)
> 
> It really sounds like you are rejecting the MOQ's basic premise with
> your argument above.
> 
> Are 'rocks' the same as 'intellectual concepts'? You seem to put them
> in the same category 'objects'. I think it may be useful to know the
> difference especially if one or the other comes flying at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html