[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[Horse]

Hi Marsha

The problem here is that you've defined everything but subjects and 
objects out of the equation! Your starting point is to define the 
Intellectual level as consisting of only subjects and objects and then 
say that it's all subjects and objects because that's how it's defined.

On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Horse wrote:

>>/  Hi Marsha
/>>/
/>>/  Process metaphysics is written in the same language as SOM, Shakespeare,
/>>/  King Charles bible, Wikipedia, the C++ Standard Library, this mailing list AND MoQ.

/>  All you list are subject/object oriented.

So the MoQ is now S/O oriented!!!

>  For me there is a Quality Level where
>  Reality is Quality(unpatterned experience&  patterned experience), and as of
>  yet, no language (except possible when used poetically) properly communicates
>  that reality.  Even within physics there is no way yet to intellectualize what is
>  still in its infancy of discovery and understanding.  I like best the possibilities
>  for entanglement.  But I will admit I know very little.

Quality level? There is no Quality level - you're now trying to 
subjugate Quality to a static pattern of Value. This is what levels are 
- static patterns of Value. Yes, Quality is Reality, according to the 
MoQ and can be subdivided into Dynamic Quality (Unpatterned Experience 
[UE]) and Static Quality (Patterned experience [PE] otherwise known as 
static patterns of Value - or the levels of the MoQ). What you appear to 
be saying is that there is a fifth level of Value (static - has to be 
because it's a level) which is Quality. So now Quality (reality) 
consists of DQ and SQ (UE and PE) where SQ (PE) also contains Quality!!!!!
No wonder no language can properly communicate that reality.
This is what I meant when I said that Bo's interpretation has mangled 
the MoQ.

>>/  If your point is that because we "use subjects and objects [and] the associated
/>>/  rules for their manipulation" then the Intellectual level is strictly S/O then the
/>>/  MoQ, which is written in the same language, is also at this same level. So the
/>>/  MoQ is part of the Intellectual level - which is not what you or Bo appear to
/>>/  be saying.
/
>  Yes, there is the SOM explanation of the MoQ, where it is intellectually presented
>  and explained as a theory:  ZMM, LILA, SODV, etc.,

It's not a SOM explanation it's just an explanation in English and
shows quite clearly that SOM and MoQ are Intellectual patterns of Value.

>  but there is also the MoQ that
>  represents Reality equals Quality(unpatterned experience&  patterned experience.)

This is just a re-statement of of Pirsig's Reality = Quality = DQ + SQ.
If this MoQ represents it then how does it do this if not by S/O as you have said.

>
>  Mary has asked, and I have asked for examples of intellectual patterns that
>  aren't presented as the manipulation of reified concepts and the rules for their
>  manipulation, but I have seen no such examples.

And I have given examples but while you have defined them out of the picture you will
continue to fail to see them as such.
How on earth can Zero be either subject or object when it references neither?
Or infinity?

>  Your process metaphysics is
>  most certainly a s/o presentation, hopeful for the future, but still mired in SOM.
>

Process metaphysics is in direct opposition to SOM - it says so on the label!

>  I'm sticking with Bo.  The Intellectual Level is through and through SOM.

Sorry, but Bo's Intellectual Level (and yours it would appear) may be 
SOM through and through but the Intellectual level of the MoQ is 
Intellectual patterns of Value. Subjects and objects are just some of 
these patterns not it's entirety.


>  Cheers, chocolate and love,

>  Marsha


Big kisses

Horse




-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson