At 02:51 AM 12/16/2007, you wrote: >Marsha > >15 Dec. you said: > > >[Bo] > > >It never ocurred to you (Steve obviously not) that Quality as > > >(objective) reality and the MOQ as a (subjective) theory is SOM > > >in a flimsy moqish guise. Until the true MOQ - the DQ/SQ - not > > >the QUALITY/MOQ travesty is realized it will not have a chance. > > > I don't see Quality as objective. To me, Quality is Reality is > > Experience which is the MOQ and me, and the most important thing is to > > pay attention, to be aware. I'm not one bit worried about this new > > understanding surviving. It's time is here and expanding. > >Whether you call it "objective" does not matter, any dualisms where >one part is REAL and the other JUST something is a SOM's offshoot. >The MOQ on the other hand postulates that the DQ/SQ is reality, >meaning that the levels are value too, but is's the Dynamic >Value/Static Value dichotomy that counts.
Greetings Bo, I don't see the dualism. There's only Quality-Reality-Experience. That a portion (spovs) has become manifested, or become identified within the human experience doesn't change that all is Quality The MOQ's levels are a valuable way to consider the portion of Quality we experience as identified pattern. Of course the levels are value, value through and through, experience through and through. I don't see the REAL versus JUST dichotomy. Maybe a better way to discuss this MOQ point-of-view in the Intellectual Level would be to do as the devilish Tittivulus did, and focus on experience, Experience-Reality-Quality. > > You have a website. Could you represent your view of the levels as a > > drawing? > >Yes, but I got help in constructing it and it just contains my "Quality >Event" essay from 1996 that has the usual block diagram which is the >very source of all misunderstandings. By now the site is outdated >(shame on me) I once had a drawing from Pirsig of the MOQ as >concentric rings, the paper itself represented DQ, but he added that it >stretched outside the paper to the end of the world. This may sound >impressive but is the impossible Quality outside the MOQ. When we >draw diagrams the paper is all and when we use language IT is all. I'd like to see a diagram. Maybe you could send it to me offlist, or have Horse post it on the MOQ website. Whether diagram or language, I find trying to confine what is outside of levels problematic. But I would like to see what sort of diagram you would invent. > > This might be very helpful I hear your frustration, but > > don't get it. I hear fear too. What will happen if your > > understanding is not accepted? Are you alone responsible for holding > > your finger in the dike? You certainly sound panicked. > >Well, possibly some frustration. The dike and finger allegory is most >apt. Good. I thought you object to the fact that Norway isn't Holland. Marsha Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
