[MF] What are people?

[Marty Jorgensen]

Hi Ted - No, I wasn't trying to set any kind of trap - in fact, the question
"What are people?" wasn't even mine; I was just responding to the answers.

I agree with everything you said - it would certainly be difficult to
communicate if we tried to eliminate subjects and objects from our
vocabulary.  I think we should be able to assign whatever attributes to
"people" that we want.  In THIS case, however, I thought an attempt was
being made to DEFINE what a person is, not just refer to a person as a
static reality.  There is a big difference between talking about people and
define what a person is.  To me, if you're trying to define something in the
context of the MOQ, then the definition needs to fit the metaphysics.  If
people are being DEFINED as relationships, then it seems to me that a good
definition of how those terms are being used is necessary.

I also think that because the world we live in communicates and is organized
around SOM principles, it makes it very difficult to talk about these issues
- but its fun trying.

By the way, I'm no MOQ pro myself; I just enjoy the dialogue.

Marty J

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_focus-bounces at moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_focus-bounces at moqtalk.org]
On Behalf Of Muzikhed at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:24 PM
To: moq_focus at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MF] What are people?

Marty said:
 
> Since we are trying to stay away from a subject / object  explanation, it 
would seem
> that what we call people are really  relationships, and cannot be
separated.
> But the idea of a relationship  needs at least two things to 'relate' to 
each
> other, so what are these  two things, and how do we keep from falling back
>  into SOM?
 
Ted responds:
 
I previously said:
 
...Since IT's ALL relationships, and 'people' are a part of   IT.

I found a quote that might better express what I meant:
I found it in Capra's The Tao of Physics, it's a quote of D.T.  Suzuki:
 
" The significance of the Avatamaska and its philosophy are unintelligible  
unless we once experience...  a state of complete dissolution where there
is 
no more distinction between mind and body, subject and object.... We look  
around and perceive that... every object is related to every other object...
not  
only spatially but temporally... As a fact of pure experience, there is no 
space  without time, no time without space.  They are interpenetrating."
 
Was Suzuki lapsing into SOM thinking when he said: 
"[We ] perceive  that... every object is related to every other object...
not 
only spatially but  temporally" ?
----------------
 
Was there some linguistic issue (trap?) in the initial question?
Would it be SOM thinking just to use the word 'people', since it  implies at

least two 'objects'?.  If we can't use nouns we're in  trouble, at least in 
the short term.
 
Seriously, as a 'theoretical mechanic', I'm used to using existing
imperfect 
models, while continually working to upgrade the models,  too.    Even
within 
the Moq, I think the word 'person'  can have different meanings in different

local models...
  A person is a minimal (human) social element 
    a body
    a soldier
    a worker
    a mouth to feed
    a voter
    a buyer
 Biologically, a person is the (human) macro system:
   Organs
   Tissues
   Cells
   Sub Cell functional units
   Proteins, Lipids, etc.
then on into the In-organic:
   Molecules

   Atoms
   electrons, protons
   quarks
   probability functions...
   string/membrane dimensions
   .... ' there's no "THERE" there!
 
These are static patterns of quality that have evolved to their  current 
state. 
I'm still a rookie, so bash away if I just stepped into the trap, but I  
don't see why adopting the MoQ as a Metaphysical system somehow diminishes
the 
practicality any prior intellectual models, except the actual SOM
philosophies 
themselves. 
 
Is it SOM to say that the tissues have a relationship to the organs within
a 
person?
Or that a 'person' (social element) has a relationship to another  person?
 
The MoQ, I think, would say that on the static intellectual level,  there
are 
many ideas, many models.  Many of these static value patterns  emerged
during 
time in intellectual evolution in which Subject/Object  Metaphysics was 
dominant.   The MoQ is a new static pattern that  has emerged
intellectually.  It 
joins S/O philosophies on the stand of  philosophies, and says it's better.

People are interacting with  these ideas:   MoQ is being evaluated.  People
are 
testing the  MoQ.   You could say it's a social / intellectual 
quality-evaluation  relationship. 
 
Accepting the MoQ as better does not require dropping Analytic geometry, or

Calculus. 
As Pirsig says, none of the dials move when we change our way of  thinking 
about the experiment... The MoQ can rather change our  understanding of what

these tools/models are, what we are, and what's happening  when we use them.
 
  
 
Ted
 
_______________________________________________
moq_focus mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_focus-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_focus-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_focus_archive/