From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 17:26:03 GMT
Hi
The last bit is wrong, SO divide cuts reality/xperience
up one way, DQ/SQ divide is another way. Pirsig
suggests the advantages of the latter which I think are
clear. In fact the DQ is like a reduced 'subject', i.e. having
any static/patterned elements removed. this is a great idea
because it really focuses in the undefinable/creative/dynamic
nature of xcertain aspects of our experience, transcendent in fact,
or a pouring forth of SQ into Being/experience.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt poot" <mattpoot@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: MD What is the role of SO divide in MOQ?
> Hello,
>
> I have been glancing over the previous thread, but never posted because I
> don't really know.
> However, after reading this post, it piqued my interest.
>
> David : I certainly agree that whatever is useful in the SOM
> can be retained in the MOQ, but I see no problem with changing
> the language of SOM and even dropping subject and object entirely.
>
> (>-POOT-<) I have been thinking a little over the past while, whether the
> 'next step' would be to drop the S/O way of thinking. In ZMM, when pirsig
> 'goes insane' (I would like to think of it as becoming sane, but I don't
> really know what he experienced), he says that he was thinking outside of
> _our_ mythos(S/O). After reading that, it made sense to me in an obvious
> way, but I was still not sure if this was the direction we must go.
>
> David:IT WILL ALWAYS BE PART OF OUR HISTORY
> AND ITS FRUITS WILL REMAIN WITH US, LIKE GREAT TECHNOLGICAL POWER &
> PRODUCTIVITY)
>
>
> -=*POOT*=- The way I have thought of this, is that the S/O mindset has
been
> part of the process in the evolution towards a truly new manner of
thinking.
> An analogy, could be that
>
> S/O = Neanderthal
> QualitySOM = Space race
>
> however, I have a question relating to that analogy.... Would the "next
> step" be just SOM, or some sort of MOQ-SOM? like SQ-DQ?
>
> However, doesn't Static Quality represent objects? Although it could
> represent 'truths'.
> Would DQ represent something like the 'subject' we know?
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Poot
>
>
> P.S. Concerning my analogy, the reason I chose "Space race", is that I
> believe there has to be a fundamental change in thought, in order for
> mankind as a whole to be able to have a concerted effort to exploring the
> stars. I chose neanderthal, because right now, (and all of our past) we
> seem not to be concerned with progress, which would be a result of more
> awareness of quality, and MOQ, etc. But this is another topic altogether
> (hence the P.S)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
>
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 19:24:28 GMT