[MD] -elitist ideas

[Case]

Arlo and all MoQer,

I just did it again. Hit Send thinking it was Reply. I used the term Spazz
before it is not a strong enough term I think.

I think Fernando nailed it in his last post.

Case

[Arlo]
I think I am refining my understanding to what Pirsig was saying. You may
disagree, of course, but I don't think I am out-of-bounds regarding the MOQ.
Indeed, I'd say I am the one "in bounds". To define "experience" to exclude
inorganic patterns goes against the fundamental principle of "value"
underlying all levels. If inorganic patterns do not "experience" inorganic
value, then why do they respond the way they do? 

Saying "value" or "experience" only emerges at the bio-social levels denies,
in my opinion, the claim that Quality is the Source. This is just what I had
posted to Kevin. Value *must* exist at the inorganic level, and as such
inorganic patterns *must* experience said value. Otherwise Quality itself
does not exist until we hit the more advanced levels of bio-social patterns.

And then we are right back to SOM. Objects that do not experience Quality,
and Subjects that do. Quality, then, is a subjective experience against an
external value-less world.

You and Kevin and Platt can embrace that position, but I don't think it
reflects the MOQ, I think it is straightforward SOM.

[Case]
I believe I understand your meaning and your purpose; it just does not work
for me. If for example subjects and objects are created in the Quality event
what do you get from two rocks banging together? Which is Subject and which
is Object?

Or do rocks not bang together if no one is looking?

This playing with and redefining of words reminds me of my attempts to
attend church. For several years I was able to recite the Apostles Creed by
mentally translating it into ideas that made some degree of consistent
sense. But as my understanding of theology evolved I found this to be more
and more of a strain until it just broke and there really was not point to
it.