From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 03:57:36 BST
Platt, DMB, all
Platt suggests that the S/O divide be thought of as a social level static
pattern, since it is ingrained in our language. DMB adds, I think correctly,
that one can see the MOQ as going back to an earlier static language pattern
to produce a different intellectual pattern (than SOM), one that recovers
the mystical that SOM brushes aside. I agree that what we say can be seen as
being based on a social level static pattern of value: that that static
pattern (our language) does pattern our thoughts in an S/O way. However, my
saying that the S/O divide is a case of DQ/SQ lies not in the thoughts
produced but in the thinking that produces them. Simply put, in thinking we
can be creative, producing never-before-thought SQ. But further, we say *I*
created that never-before-thought thought. We may be deluded about this, and
in a way I think we are. That is, it may be more accurate to say that DQ
created it, not *me*. Nevertheless, we are at a minimum required to say that
DQ created it *through* me. Hence, the subject, regardless of its lack of
permanent self-existence, is the medium *at our current stage of
consciousness* for DQ. So I think the S/O divide should be thought of as a
case of the DQ/SQ divide.
So I think we need to distinguish:
a) SOM as an intellectual static pattern of value,
b) Our language, which includes static S/O patterns of value, and
c) the S/O divide as the way DQ creates intellectual SQ at this time.
To extend what DMB has to say, though, is what, in my view, makes making
this distinction important. It is to emphasize that the redemption of Adam's
sin is not just reunion with God, but that we reunite without losing our
individuality. Otherwise, what's the point?
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: MD The S/O divide
> Hi Jonathan, Ian, All
>
> Jonathan
> > I don't see the S/O divide as a social pattern. It is an
> > (intellectual) description of perception AT ALL LEVELS.
>
> Since "perception" is an S/O term (perceiver/perceived) it appears your
> definition of the S/O divide is circular. I read it as "The S/O divide
> is an intellectual description of the S/O divide at all levels."
>
> I've no doubt that the S/O divide is an intellectual in the sense that
> symbols are intellectual. But just as intellect got its start in the
> social level to "find food, detect danger and defeat enemies," so the
> S/O divide got its start early on in that level to distinguish thought
> tigers from toothy tigers. SOM, on the other hand is an intellectual
> "system" (metaphysics) that didn't became a dominating "level" until
> around the time of Bacon, Kepler and Galileo . . . a system
> unfortunately that can't account for morals except to say they're
> relative and therefore "Who are we to judge?"
>
> I'm still open minded about the issue of the S/O divide vs. SOM and
> appreciate your response. I may come back to agree with you after I've
> heard from others and thought about it so more.
>
> Platt
>
> "The struggle is always between the individual and his sacred right to
> express himself and the power structure that seeks conformity,
> suppression and obedience." --William O. Douglas
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 04:16:00 BST