[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[Jaclyn Engele]

I've been trying to explain MoQ to my wife in an attempt to clarify things in my own mind primarily.  I've run into a problem I need help with.

As I explained things to my wife in terms that were relevant to her, I showed how I embody an objective perspective.  The realization of this is in fact why the MoQ has had such a profound impact on me.  I now try to apply the MoQ throughout my life but with the obvious hazards such as years of bad habits.  I then explained that she was stuck in the same SOM rut as I was but that she embodied the Subjective perspective.

I can clearly see through my own experience how detrimental it is to live primarily through the objective lens.  My father once said to me, "no one wants to hear your musings".  I believed him because it made sense.  It was a remark that resonated because it hit the objective nail on the head.  I accepted this point of view as my own and proceeded to apply it to everything in my life.  Well, soon there was nothing left of any value.  It seemed that money was the only thing that was of any value and I didn't have any of it and I didn't have the tools to get any of it.  How could I have anything to offer to the world if nothing I have is of any value?  This led to a massive depression.  Long story short, MoQ solved this problem.  

I think that her life can be said to illustrate the subjective point of view quite well.    She will start a project but never finish it because she only needs to satisfy the craving.  She will paint 2/3rds of a room and leave it because she can see the color.   There are countless unfinished projects like that around the house.  There is no problem with leaving it like that and moving on to something else.  No need to change the oil in her car or do any maintenance on just about anything for that matter.  I'm not being critical, I enjoy the difference and that's partly why I'm attracted to her.  She has little use for reason, logic,analysis,  or just doing what is the smart thing to do, in fact she tends to avoid those things for the very reason that they exist.  She is however, quick witted, efficient, intuitively intelligent, creative, passionate, I could go on.

The MoQ solved my problem with objectivity quite neatly.  Once I realized that everything had value, that changed everything.  Furthermore, it solved the problem of what to do as well.  I simply had to look to myself for guidance.  What were the things that I valued(now that I had licence to place value on everything I could rank everything).

When I applied the MoQ to my wife's subjectivity problem, she responded that she can be objective when she needs to be but is quite happy with her subjective outlook.  She felt that as long as there is a balance between the two, what's the problem?  I couldn't answer.

I thought that perhaps I was confusing the issue by introducing the male/female dichotomy by which there are generalizations to make, ie: males tend to be objective, females tend to be subjective.  What is wrong with a balanced SOM?  Yin/Yang.  In glancing through ZMM I couldn't find any direct refutation of this approach although I was hardly thorough.  I found it ironic that in an instant she could sense more about this issue than I could put into words.  I also remember vaguely the words of Joseph Campbell who stated something along the lines of 'All human life comes from women.  Women are the givers of life, they are the source.  Many mythologies exists in part to explain this and patriarchal societies exist in an attempt to gain access to that source and control it.'(paraphrase)

On page 223 of ZMM (1984 paperback)  RP shows  two charts.  pre and post MoQ.  The MoQ chart shows sub(mind) and obj(matter) as  divisions of classic(intellectual reality).  Romantic quality(pre-intellectual reality) is a dead end and quality(reality) is at the top.  The classic subject/object branch is supposed to be the post game analysis of reality(quality) with a slight time delay.  The romantic branch is supposed to be the instantaneous experience of reality(quality).  Thing is, I can see how the subjective path could be either romantic or classical while at the same time the objective path could only be classical(analytical after the fact).  If reality exists in the present moment only(romantic pre intellectual) then the subject has access to reality and the objective perspective is a useful tool for analysis of that  event.  The only reason we ever thought that quality and reality were not synonymous was because of the dominance of the objective classical perspective.

Our western culture is caught up in the SOM trap by being predominantly objective to a fault.  ZMM seems to answer the SOM problem because it is primarily a problem we experience as objectivity taken to a fault more so than subjectivity taken to a fault.  Even within a SOM, subjectivity places value on instantaneous(romantic) reality and therefore the question of quality, regarding subjectivity, could be semantic.  Indeed, if you approach reality through one or the other you have problems.  If you approach reality through a balanced path I don't see a problem because subjectivity has a direct link to what appears to be quality, it just can't do anything of value with it without objectivity.  As long as it is tempered with objectivity it appears to work.  That's the issue I'm faced with.   


I may be working things out here as we speak.   Is the conjoining of subject/object the answer?  "Quality(reality) ...is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the object"RP pg.215.  Even with this, is 'balance' an appropriate term to use when explaining the MoQ or what?

Jim (I'm too tired to go on) Engele