[MD] Emotions' place?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Bo,

> Too bad I thought you had had an epiphany and seen the SOM-MOQ 
> premises shift. Because it's a total no-stage-between such, much like 
> the famous "two black profiles/white vase" example. One either see 
> one or the other, no instant exists when one sees both.    

An excellent analogy -- a new one I believe since MOQ discuss came into 
existence some 10 plus years ago. It is precisely a shift in perspective 
that marks understanding of  the MOQ, not words, but a snap into seeing 
differently. What's really hard is shifting from one perspective to 
another, especially since talking about it automatically keeps one within 
the SOM perspective only.   
  
> The MOQ rejects the S/O split as existence's fundament (of which 
> "nominalisation/whats nominalized" is a variety) In its place the MOQ 
> postulates that existence fundamental split  is Dynamic/Static (forget 
> about Quality at this stage) Consequently there is no nominalisation 
> realm different from what names refer to .... metaphysically seen that 
> is. The S/O split (and its countless derivatives) is however an 
> enormous static value and given the position of MOQ's highest level. 

I caution against "forget about Quality at this stage." The MOQ perspective 
reveals a world of values, static and Dynamic. To focus on the 
Dynamic/Static split alone merely reinforces the SOM dictum that some 
things change while others stay the same. 
 
> And it's no use harping on more details, the enormity of this inside-out
> turn of the existential "sock" must be understood first. 

Right, but so hard to do when most symbols we think with are trapped in the 
confines of SOM, like fish bound by the sea. And like fish, most of us 
don't survive long when, either by accident or design, we gain a finhold on 
MOQ land. Adaption doesn't come easily, as the dodo bird attests.  

Best,
Platt