[MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

[MarshaV]

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:41 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Ron:
you not answering my questions is boring too


Logic requires objective reasoning, it is constructed on the idea of
concrete forms.
S/o is a construction built into our cultural glasses. If not, and it's the
natural way
to see and interpret reality as a human being, then what is the use of MoQ?

Marsha:
The MoQ is a model of reality based on patterned experience and unpatterned
experience that more accurately represents experience.  How's that for
reasoning, reasoning based on experience?   

 
Ron:
Everything Pirsig says about SOM being an artifical construction, just "one
of many ways
to interpret reality" is therefore wrong and incorrect and makes SOM
correct, the natural
way humans see the world, other cultures are simply undeveloped. 

Marsha:
Don't use that 'Everything' on me, Ron, I wasn't born yesterday.


Ron:
Other ways including
DQ/SQ are false, it makes seeing things as patterns a construction and
seeing things
as objects natural. 

Marsha:
I have no idea what this sentence points to.  The recognition of patterns is
seen from the DQ/sq level.


Ron:
DQ/SQ is simply a construction invented by a man named Robert
Pirsig, he did not discover DQ/SQ under a microscope or in a supercollider
he invented
it. 


Marsha:
The MoQ is a model that is a better representation of reality than the model
of inherent existing subjects and objects.  A reality that is experience as
patterned and unpatterned.  


Ron:
So why disregard the natural way we percieve reality for one mans invention?
why call an object a collection of patterns? when an object is truer to our
perception?


Marsha:
Because it rings true to my experience.  An object is not truer to my
experience, and the inherent existence of an object is illogical.