[MD] subject / object logic

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
>Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:30:12 -0400
>
>At 09:47 PM 8/14/2007, Dan wrote:
>
> > >>
> > >>[Marsha]
> > >> I agree with Dan.  I think of it as all being Quality, there is the
> > >> known (sq) and the unmanifest (DQ).  The known, or static quality, is
> > >> relational and everchanging.  The MOQ is a more elegant, higher
> > >> quality idea than SOM.
> > >
> > >[Ron]
> > >Exactly, staticly percieved physical reality is Relational,which 
>implies
> > >value.
> > >the relational value of subjects to objects, I do not see how the term
> > >relation is comprehensable
> > >in any other form. I agree, MOQ places focus on the value relationship
> > >not the
> > >subjects and objects themselves. SQ is this distinction, while DQ is 
>the
> > >incomprehensible
> > >infinite (energy?). While all is DQ, SQ represents the s/o value
> > >relation that is percieved.
> >
> >Dan:
> >I would say static quality represents value. Perception is Dynamic.
>
>Hi Dan,
>
>This is interesting.  I think of direct perception as static/dynamic
>rather than pure dynamic.  While it is true that direct perception is
>experience without being filtered through thoughts (social &
>intellectual patterns), such experience is still filtered through
>biological patterns (sight, taste, hearing, etc.).  Isn't our system
>of sight a biological static pattern of value?

Hi Marsha

Good point. Of course we're linked to reality via our biological senses. And 
of course the MOQ tells us that all our perceptions are colored by culture 
as well. Yet when Robert Pirsig talks of direct perception I think he is 
pointing to the cutting edge of experience... the split second prior to 
intellectualization when all is fresh and new. The hot stove analogy comes 
to mind. It's only common sense to attribute the leaping off to biological 
instinct but I think what Mr. Pirsig is driving at lies deeper. 'It' is 
masked by biological patterns to which we're accustomed. I think it's the 
same with our system of sight. We are so accustomed to sight we forget what 
a miracle it really is, how Dynamic. It is only later that we categorize and 
intellectualize that Dynamic process into those static patterns of value to 
which we're accustomed.

Thoughts?

Dan