[MD] Crazy talk

[gav]

the MoQ replaces the S/O split with the four levels.
the top two replace the 'subject'; the bottom two
replace 'object'.

 one of the great things about the MoQ is that we can
see how the 2nd and 3rd levels interact, how one grows
from and depends on the other. SOM can't explain the
relation between S and O,  hence 2500 years of
alienation.

cos that is the danger: S/O split is the root split,
the original adversarial dichotomy that has bred an
entire complex stupid reality based, predicated, on
that oppositional stand. let's not forget that.

sure... use em if you want...subject and object. but
if you don't use em *precisely* and *in context* (ie
MoQ context) then we all have a duty to jump on the
recidivist from a great height. 




--- Michael Hamilton <thethemichael at gmail.com> wrote:

> He everyone,
> 
> On 1/2/07, Laird said something quite good, which
> seems to have gone unremarked:
> > Thinking that the MoQ is seriously opposed to SOM
> is a very dangerous
> > road. The MoQ encompasses and tames SOM, and to
> some extent relies upon
> > the fruits of SOM to provide strength to its
> argument. SOM provides an
> > awful lot to our intellect and to trash it would
> be a catastrophic loss.
> > An MoQ directly opposed to SOM would be
> anti-rational, anti-logical,
> > self-destructive and doomed from the get-go. SOM
> just has a big ego and
> > the MoQ knocks it down a peg or two. :)
> 
> Damn straight! In the initial rush of excitement
> after reading Pirsig,
> I had a tendency to get big-headed, thinking I'd
> been let in on the
> true reality and that from here on in I'd be so much
> more enlightened
> all these dolts living in their world of subjects
> and objects. As
> Laird says: dangerous road.
> 
> Throwing out subjects and objects is crazy talk, and
> not very useful.
> It's tied up my brains a fair few times. The great
> thing about the MOQ
> is that it doesn't _start_ with subjects and objects
> - it starts with
> experience. So in a way, MOQ _is_ opposed to SOM,
> i.e. a metaphysics
> which starts with subjects and objects. But the MOQ
> doesn't ban us
> from talking about or thinking about subjects and
> objects.
> 
> The MOQ is a philosophy for life, rather than a
> philosophy for knifed,
> dissected, dead matter. That's something I'd been
> looking for before
> picking up ZMM. The danger that I succumbed to after
> reading Pirsig
> was deluding myself that it's always wrong to think
> in terms of
> subjects and objects. It's a delusion every bit as
> guilt-inducing as
> believing in Original Sin.
> 
> The subject/object distinction is a poor
> metaphysical master. But
> let's not forget that it can be an excellent
> servant.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 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/
> 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com