[MF] What are people?

[Muzikhed at aol.com]

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