[MD] Intellectual activity

[Gene M]

>
> 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.
>

Hey Vincent! That was exactly the kinda post I was hoping for, very well
said.

I think the problem with my terminology is that I'm used to talking about my
ideas with people who're completely unfamiliar with the MOQ, so I've sort of
put MOQ terms into more classic SOM terms for them. I'll try and switch back
to more familiar terms.

By Objects I was indeed referring to static patterns of value. And by
interaction I remove all the things leading up to and immediately following
the interaction, it's purely the point at which two objects affect one
another in some way. There is now cause and effect are static patterns, but
the action that connects them, is what I consider Dynamic Quality.

At that point, there is no subject or object, there is only the interaction
between them, which then coalesces in effects, which can then be defined for
subject and object if so desired.

It's a confusing intermingle of MOQ and SOM terms, but I find it easier to
explain to people who are unfamiliar with Quality. However since you're all
obviously on the same page I'll try and use proper terminology.

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.
>
>
Definately! Money exists in many different ways. However it seems like the
physical part of money is rapidly fading away. It reminds me of the 'Church
as a bar' story in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The church
building is not The Church, the same way pieces of printed cotton are not
Money. They're simply a physical representation of a concept. As it fades
away Money becomes more and more abstract. I think that this Need people
have for Money is purely societal. We need money to eat, to have shelter and
clean water. And altough these needs are biological, they have been linked
irrevocably in our culture to the social need for money. The same goes for
any social benefits and alot of people's intellectual wants as well. All
these wants and needs that we have, have been channelled through the social
construct of Money. It's a static social pattern of values, completely. It
just happens to have been forced into contact with all other levels of
value, even though it does not come from them.

-Gene