[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Mary]

Hi Andre,

> Andre to Mary:
> > >  Is death subject or object? Is suffering subject or object? Is
> sickness
> > >  subject or object? Is yin/ yang subject or object? Is form/
> > >  formlessness subject or object???
> >
> 
> Mary says:Yes.
> 
> Andre:
> Yes what? Commit yourself Mary! As dmb has argued in a previous post,
> your SOM use is beyond its bounds. SOM postulates either this or that
> Mind eternally separated from matter. Which one is it? We are talking
> about clear divisions here. Mind or matter, material or mental, objects
> or subjects, physical or psychological ...what else do you want? You
> maintain the separation which the MOQ is unifying....yes! at the
> intellectual level...this is its strength! The Good can be
> intellectually defended!
> 
[Mary Replies] 
The MoQ can be understood on many levels (with a small 'L').  The uncanny
nature of Pirsig's work is how well it functions from so many perspectives.
The things you speak of all have a relationship to the subject/object
dichotomy.  The MoQ has shown me (the only person I can speak for is myself,
anyway) that all static patterns are illusion.  To ask if they are subjects
or objects is the wrong question, as I know you would agree.  Our difference
lies in where to place the MoQ and Eastern Mysticism in the "blessed
4-tiered hierarchy".  I say, all levels are a response to Quality.  That
they have a hierarchy amongst themselves is only important in how they
relate to themselves.  BUT, they are all nothing more important than static
(impermanent) patterns of value.  So, if I say to you that I would put
Eastern Mysticism in the Social Level, and the MoQ there too (if you or
anyone should decide to treat it as a religion), then so what?  I have
committed no heresy.  I have demoted nothing, for there is ultimately
nothing to demote.  The hierarchy between the levels is only that.  It is
not a hierarchy of Dynamic Quality.  Dynamic Quality has no hierarchy.  It
just is.  Do you see what I'm getting at?  The MoQ has much greater strength
and explanatory power when you view its arch enemy - SOM - at the top of the
hierarchy.  If you put the MoQ itself inside its own hierarchy, it becomes
just another metaphysics, like James or any of the others DMB and Steve are
endlessly debating.  

Pirsig is a child of SOM as are we all.  The MoQ was conceived (or
discovered for those that see it that way) by a SOM intellect using SOM
logic.  His uncanny ability was to turn this SOM logic against itself!  I
really have reservations about anywhere you put the MoQ.  If you put it in
the Intellectual, it's just another theory.  If you turn it into a Social
religion, then I'd have to worship Dynamic Quality, I guess.  Both kind of
suck to my mind, and do it a disservice.  This is why I lamented to Pirsig
recently that I did not like it that he said "Good is a Noun".  This smacks
of QualiGod.  They have Gods in the East too.  Can't we move beyond that
stuff?  It just occurred to me that what I might be more comfortable with is
"MoQ as a new kind of science".  One that doesn't presume subjects and
objects nor seek absolute answers.  But that just occurred to me, and I need
to think about it some more.

> And if and when you say it is the subject/ object aggregate (as Bodvar
> would have it) and if we understand by  'object' meaning inorganic and
> organic patterns of value ( which in  SOM are completely different
> ideas
> and postulates as opposed to be understood in the MOQ) and subjects are
> social and intellectual patterns of value...then we may come a bit
> closer... but to be understood not from a SOM perspective but from the
> intellectual pattern called MOQ.
> 
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Subjects are whatever is doing the talking, and objects are whatever they
are talking about.  Could be inorganic, could be an idea.  Could be
anything.  Doesn't matter.  It's all static patterns of value fighting it
out in the static hierarchy.  None of it's real.   It's just one "response
to Quality" fighting for position with another "response to Quality".  Ho
Hum.

Best,
Mary