[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[MarshaV]

At 04:11 AM 11/29/2008, you wrote:
>Marsha and Steve
>
>28 Nov. Marsha cited Steve's:
>
> > >Let's apply the pragmatic maxim here .... snip
>
>and said:
>
> > I still do not understand Bo's problem.  As I've said when all are
> > seen as interrelated and interconnected static patterns of value, the
> > subject/object problem dissolves.  (At least in theory, in practice
> > old habits are a bit difficult to break.)   And I've always had a
> > problem with an upper DQ/sq level.  DQ should not be confined in any
> > visual way.  It certainly should not be confined to a level.  Bo's
> > tenaciousness is remarkable, but has convinced me of nothing.
>
>We may have our personal takes of Pirsig's ideas, but if the level
>aspect of it is valid everything is NOT interrelated/interconnected - not
>at the pragmatic plane that Steve points to.

Greetings Bo,

A pattern belongs to a discreet level, but will also be 
interrelated/interconnected to other spovs across all 
levels.  Pragmatic?  I don't understand you pointing to 
pragmatic.  Please explain.

On 18Nov08 in 'The Menu/Reality issue', you stated about the map and 
terrain patterns, "A glib reply is that both are inorganic, the paper 
of a map is "dead" organic material and the ink ?? The terrain is 
surely inorganic."   A map as social spov might be its use getting 
from here to there.  In your statement you are acknowledging a 
relationship between a map-spov and ("dead"-organic-material-spov & 
ink-spov).  The two aggregates (ink & material) also have 
interrelated/interconnected spovs, etc., etc., etc...    Patterns are 
interrelated and interconnected.  Or is a pattern, in your opinion, 
just another name for thing-in-iteself?

Is the map-spov unchanging?  For you a map's aggregates might be 
paper-spov and ink-spov, but I have a beautiful map painted onto a 
deer skin.  For me a map-spov might have aggregates of paint-spov and 
deerskin-spov.  Some of my paintings are maps (getting from here to 
there).  In that case paint and canvas are the aggregates.  But if I 
am holding in my hand a road map, paper and ink would seem about 
right.  And let's talk of paper.  Having experience in papermaking, 
it's component/aggregates might be any number of strange components.

IMHO, a pattern is static until minds are changed.


>You may be a Buddhist
>and feel all right with such "wisdom" but as Westerns steeped in SOM
>(what becomes the 4th. level in the MOQ) we demand an objective
>approach to things  and are - likewise - bound to deem your approach
>as woolly nonsense.


I understand the MOQ to be a synthesis of Western intelligence and 
Eastern wisdom.  Do you want to exclude the Eastern wisdom?

I am not a Buddhist and I am not not a Buddhist.  I very much admire 
Mahayana wisdom (the little I understand).   What SOM's objectivity 
thinks of my approach has lost most of its value for me.  Do I need 
to cling to it?


Marsha



.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.