[MD] Subjectivity and objectivity for SOM & MOQ

[David M]

Hi Bo

Some thoughts.

The distinction between symbol and what is symbolised surely needs to be 
based
in quality experience according to the MOQ. So that what is symbolised must 
be a quality
like wet or wetness, whereas the symbol is simply something like a sound or 
word
or picture for 'wet'. When we use a number of associated qualities to talk 
about
patterns that endure and call these objects then these may be symbolised but 
are
always aggregates of qualities. Between symbols and the objects they 
sometimes symbolise
must be the qualities of the MOQ.

When the MOQ suggest that patterns can be seen as falling into a number of 
levels
these too must be grounded in qualities and continuing to see these as 
divisable into
subjective and objective patterns is misleading.

When we consider some patterns as intellectual we are seeing that being able 
to
recognise such patterns is only possible for someone experience such 
patterns
in more than a simply social way, than someone concerned only with accepting
what is important to the group and traditional for the group. When some 
patterns
are seen as social we see that they can be understood in social terms that 
have
no intellectual content. Biological patterns can be seen without the need to 
refer to
either intellectual or social factors, and inorganic patterns can be 
understood without
these or biological aspects to explain them.

There is a sense of subjective and objective that is simply to understand a 
pattern
with or without prejudice. In this sense patterns at all levels can be 
understood objectively.
Money is understood only through cultural social/intellectual concepts but 
can be understood
quite objectively in this sense.

With prejudice understanding might refer to cultural factors that are 
subjective according
to SOM. But for MOQ all patterns including cultural ones can be understood 
quite
objectively -including any values involved too.

Something less clear cut between SOM and MOQ is the status of patterns that 
belong to
the person and may be individual and relatively unique. Such patterns may be 
seen as
prejudicing understanding of patterns at all levels and are individually 
subjective in this
sense. For SOM such prejudice is the height of subjective messiness and 
confusion.
I wonder how the MOQ shouldlook at such patterns? I'd hope the MOQ would
recognise the value rather than the threat that such individual difference 
presents.

Regards
David M