[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[Jaclyn Engele]

Jim Engele:
>
> Is it appropriate to explain the MoQ using the term 'balance' regarding
> subject/object?  Is it appropriate to think of subjectivity and 
> objectivity
> as tools to use in gaining access to quality/truth/reality?  If they are
> tools then I'm inferring that I exist indepentantly of my perspective
> because I can choose the tool to use.

More importantly I realized after the fact, that this suggests that quality 
exists independantly of the two perspectives which is of course the MoQ. 
Another question, I've noticed on the 'confused' thread, this:

[Case]
The MoQ IS Taoism. Quality is The Way and its two qualities are the dynamic
and
the static. What Pirsig calls DQ is the perception of harmony when the two
are
in balance. Nothing is purely static nor purely dynamic. But the world
arises
from their shifting balance.

Dynamic/Static, subject/object, I think I'm noticing the dynamic/static 
qualites when I use the terms subject/object.

Can we also use term 'the middle way' from Buddhism?  Is that appropriate?

Jim Engele