To Bo and others,
> Andrea:
> the 4 levels are a way to describe how are *static patterns of value*
> relate to each other [...]
> DQ [...] don't fit in.
> Bo:
> With all respect Andrea No, and no again! If the MoQ is to replace the
> SOM and "spiritual" is one of SOM's subjectivities then - naturally - it
> gets a place inside MoQ's STATIC sequence. The misconception that Dynamic
> Quality is the spiritual realm of SOM leaves it just a messy SOM.
That's very true. In fact, I would never argue that the spiritual realm of
SOM is DQ.
What I said is:
1) DQ does not belong to the four levels.
This was what literally stated in the passage you quoted. Are you arguing
with that? Let me know how.
2) "Spirit" could be a good metaphor for DQ.
Perhaps you were arguing on this latter point. I'm not sure what you meant.
Note that the "spirit" I was talking about has no place in SOM. It is not a
subject, nor a property of subjects, not an object, nor a property of
objects. It seems that you use the term "spiritual" to refer to something
related to the "subject" ("one of SOM's subjectivities"?). This is
absolutely not the same thing I was talking about.
I think what you are talking about might be the "subjective spiritual" shall
I say, either defined by:
- those emotions, ideas, aspirations that we connect to something "higher"
than the physical world/life;
- the idea of a personal soul as found in western religions.
While both these things have a role in my overall view of the world, this
role isn't given by them "being" DQ. Perhaps we could talk about it, but
none of them is the same thing as the Spirit (capital S) I, or the Sufi
mystic quoted by Platt, were talking about.
Bo:
"Metaphorical vs non-metaphorical" is another SOM duality. Treating language
as something outside of experience ...no!.
Sorry, Bo, I have no idea why using the "metaphor" concept would be equated
to treating language as something outside of experience. I read your
sentence like: "you shouldn't use the metaphor concept, because it is a SOM
concept."
First, I doubt all SOM concepts can be eradicated from language. Second, I
doubt that the perfect MOQ thinker wouldn't want to use the "metaphor"
concept when talking to other people. In fact, if you eradicate all SOM
assumptions from language, you'll get a *new* language with no universally
agreed upon meaning. *All* the words in the vocabulary have a SOM meaning.
Since the MOQ supposedly represents a metaphysical paradigm shift, and goes
counter popular metaphysical assumptions, my humble opinion is that we
shouldn't be so picky with words. Your "truth", "metaphorical vs
non-metaphorical is a SOM duality", was conceived and written from a point
of view from which that looked like a quality statement. I have no doubt
about it, and I have no doubt that in some sense this is true, maybe very
true, maybe very relevant. But the quality of this statement is not
*objective*. What you didn't do (and you couldn't do in such a short note)
is lead me to that place in your reasoning where this "truth" seems
relevant. I just meant that the term "spirit", in some of its possible
various (SOM) meanings, reasonably matches my (MOQ) idea of DQ.
Andrea
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:50 BST