[MD] subject / object logic

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: pholden at davtv.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:38:21 -0400
>
>Quoting Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com>:
>
> > All things arise, flourish, and pass away. Are we things? SOM says yes. 
>MOQ
> > says no. If one chooses to believe the SOM myth, then so be it. There is
> > little I or anyone can do to change their minds.
>
>Will your be so kind as to point out where in the MOQ as described in Lila 
>it says
>we are not "things?" I would appreciate it.

Hi Platt

It appears to me that that is what LILA is about... there are many ways to 
divide reality. To consider people as "things" or objects is subject and 
object based thinking, however. I am a bit shocked at your reply and suspect 
you're just baiting me, but be that as it may...

"After many months of thinking about it, he was left with a reward of two 
terms: Dynamic good and static good, which became the basic division of his 
emerging Metaphysics of Quality.
It certainly felt right. Not subject and object but static and Dynamic is 
the basic division of reality." (LILA)

"In a subject-object metaphysics morals and art are worlds apart, morals 
being concerned with the subject quality and art with object quality. But in 
the Metaphysics of Quality that division doesn't exist. They're the same. 
They both become much more intelligible when references to what is 
subjective and what is objective are completely thrown away and references 
to what is static and what is Dynamic are taken up instead." (LILA)

"He remembered the child Poincare referred to who could not understand the 
reality of objective science at all but was able to understand the reality 
of value perfectly. When this reality of value is divided into static and 
Dynamic areas a lot can be explained about that baby's growth that is not 
well explained otherwise." (LILA)

"...it is not until the baby is several months old that he will begin to 
really understand enough about that enormously complex correlation of 
sensations and boundaries and desires called an object to be able to reach 
for one. This object will not be a primary experience. It will be a complex 
pattern of static values derived from primary experience." (LILA)

"The same is true of objects.
One uses these complex patterns the same way one shifts a car, without 
thinking about them. Only when the shift doesn't work or an "object" turns 
out to be an illusion is one forced to become aware of the deductive 
process. That is why we think of subjects and objects as primary. We can't 
remember that period of our lives when they were anything else.
In this way static patterns of value become the universe of distinguishable 
things. Elementary static distinctions between such entities as "before" and 
"after" and between "like" and "unlike" grow into enormously complex 
patterns of knowledge that are transmitted from generation to generation as 
the mythos, the culture in which we live." (LILA)

Dan comments:

Please note the sentence: In this way static patterns of value become the 
universe of distinguishable things.

The way I read it, the MOQ states that people are not things. We are a 
collection of static patterns of value (plus undefined Dynamic Quality) that 
have become things in the culture which we inhabit.

>I have this strange belief that capital
>punishment results in the real death of a real individual. I also wonder if 
>people
>don't really exist why we should care what happens to them. Perhaps you can 
>  explain.

People exist as a collection of static quality patterns of value, not as 
objects or things. We value people. That's why we care about what happens to 
them.

Thank you,

Dan