[MD] -elitist ideas

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Case]
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.

[Arlo]
Nah, it just demonstrates the power of habituated activity. :-)

[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?

[Arlo]
Well, this is half my point. I think its better to replace "subjects and
objects" with "experience and value". SOM is good for what it is, but I think
the MOQ, which extends Quality all the way down to electrons, is better.

In the example of the rock and gravity, where I say the rock "experiences"
gravity (and I am using the scare quotes to differentiate between experience at
the inorganic level and the complex bio-socio-intellectual experience of
humans), I could say that "in this experience, the rock becomes the subject and
the gravity becomes the object... by virtue of the Quality in that
value-experience". Meaning that the value-event is what creates BOTH the rock
and the gravity. 

In your example, it is nonsensical to say one rock becomes a subject and one an
object. Each become "subjects" (scare quotes, same reason) in response to a
value-event on the inorganic level (such as, perhaps, pressure, force, etc.).
That force becomes the "object". 

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

[Arlo]
I suppose rocks bang together during an avalanche, or earthquake, or the impact
of a meteor, etc. And when they do, it is because they are experiencing
inorganic value (gravity, etc.). But, again, your example implies my position
is such that a rock will decide to move and bang against another rock for
non-inorganic reasons. A rock, as I've said repeatedly, is incapable of
experiencing biological, social or intellectual quality. It lacks any
biological ability to respond to anything except inorganic patterns. It lacks
any social-intellectual abilities to be "cognizant" of its surroundings. So
please, in the interest of not making me repeat that yet again, please don't
paint my position as one where rocks think or act or feel, as these are all
experiences above the inorganic level.

[Case]
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.

[Arlo]
If the MOQ is as radical a shift away from SOM as is said, I'm not sure how
redefining popular concepts is avoidable.

By the way, its good to be disagreeing with you, Case. :-)