[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[Jaclyn Engele]

True, and perhaps that's part of the confusion I'm experiencing, 
terminology.  I've thought that this belongs on the 'confused' thread.  I'm 
just trying to work out real life applications of the MoQ.

Jim Engele

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gene M" <boredandunstable at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] extricating MOQ from SOM


> Sounds to me like those are people who interacting in a very real way with
> Dynamic Quality, and not building up static intellectual patterns to try 
> and
> explain it. I can't tell you if that's a good thing or a bad thing, just 
> my
> interpretation of the situation.
>
> -Gene
>
> On 10/26/06, Jaclyn Engele <JENGELE at mass.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > [Case]
>> > I thought Pirsig's said that the problem arrises from regarding SOM as
>> THE
>> > fundamental metaphysical distinction...
>>
>> I am conscious of that and yet at the same time I see things slightly
>> different.  The problem I see is that the people who make this mistake 
>> are
>> the ones who objectify to a fault. They  view quality(reality) as 
>> residing
>> in either subject or object.   This is the story we're all familiar with.
>> However, those who are predominantly subjective in their outlook (for
>> example: my wife, artists, the professional classical musicians that I
>> have
>> to deal with in my line of work every day) don't make the same
>> mistake.  If
>> they subjectify the world to a fault they end up making a different
>> mistake
>> but through it all they somehow still recognize quality as supreme.   The
>> mistake they make is that they refuse to analyze and learn(paralysis by
>> analysis is a term I hear at work all the time).  This is why talking to
>> them about a Metaphysics of Quality goes in one ear and out the
>> other.  It's
>> just not a problem they can relate to.  You see what I'm saying?
>>
>> Through my observations I have come to wonder if, in practical terms,
>> finding the right 'balance' between S&O in one's life is compatible in
>> concept with the MoQ.  Finding harmony.   "Quality(reality) ...is the
>> event
>> at which the subject becomes aware of the object"ZMM pg.215
>>
>> I also wonder if S&O are tools to use to gain access to
>> reality/truth/quality.  If, in doing that, I am recognizing the superior
>> positioning of reality/truth/quality to a subordinate S&O, then I think
>> that
>> is compatible with MoQ.  That is very pragmatic.  That is something I can
>> use in everyday life.  I think the subjective people might just find that
>> useful as well.
>>
>>
>> Jim Engele
>>
>> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/