[MD] Intellectual activity

[Vincent Edison Luther]

Hi Gene, Craig,  Ayar, whoever else I may have missed,

I've been away from the MOQ for a while but I used to
post fairly regularly.  I wanted to comment on trying
to see where money fits in the MOQ.

I think it's important to remember that the static
levels that Pirsig talked about refer to different
types of patterns of value.

When we think about money we are talking about a buch
of different patterns that fall into different levels.
If we are referring to the physical aspects of
currency we are describing inorganic patterns (size,
shape, color, hardness or softness, etc). If we are
talking about thinking about what to spend money on,
then we are talking about intellectual patterns
(patterns of thought). If we are referring to the
unconscious forces such as celebrity and branding that
influence our buying habits, we are talking about
social patterns.
 
> ayar wrote:
> >
> > I believe that moq implies that all objects are
> inherently dynamic,
> > regardless of moq-hierarchical orientation. 
>Think
> of moq as a prism that
> > accepts dynamic input (any object) and outputs
> discrete bands, as it were,
> > which may be labeled according to moq (bio, socio,
> etc.) The problem as far
> > as I can tell is that objects don't come
> pre-defined (they are dynamic after
> > all) and any resultant values are largely
> subjective. In other words,
> > resultant of what? The process of unfolding
> reality? Of individual
> > perception? Of the moq, the whole moq, and nothing
> but the moq? I can't say.
> >
> >   In any case, objects don't belong to static
> categories. Objects are
> > dynamic.


I think the problem here is that you can't talk about
objects prior to the dynamic/statict split. Once
you've identified an object, it is already static or
you couldn't be talking about it.

In MOQ objects are usually thought of as inorganic and
biological patterns.


I forget who said this:
> My personal Dichotomy is seperating Reality into
> Objects and Interactions.
> Objects exist on their own, and only come in contact
> through interactions.
> By object I mean both physical and immaterial, ideas
> are just as much
> objects as lawn furniture I feel.

To be more MOQish you may try thinking of objects in
terms of patterns of value. You may be talking about
the same thing and if so it would be helpful if you
stayed with Pirsig's terms.

> I consider objects as the static, and interactions
> as the dynamic. So money
> could exist as a Static Social Object, but the way
> it interacts with other
> things is Dynamic Quality. Same way a chair is a
> Static Physical Object, and
> stubbing my toe on it is Dynamic Quality, resulting
> in such static Objects
> as a Bruise, Pain, Irritation and quite possibly
> some cussing.

Toe stubbing is a pattern of behavior and therefore
static. Though if you are the person stubbing his toe
there is both a dynamic and static aspect to the
experience since pure experience is prior to this
split.

I think the interactions you are talking about are
still patterns.

It sounds like you are thinking of experience as the
interaction between a subject and an object or other
subject which is pure SOM.

Let me know if this helps or if you want me to clarify
or maybe just buzz off.

Regards,
Steve




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com