Ron, Cris, All. On 3 Mars:
Ron had said: > > The DQ/SQ divide is the intellectual/reality divide. Pirsig says > > killintellectual patterns and morality is served. Reality is > > realizedMore fully. Reality being patterns of Quality. Intellectualize > > all youWant but doing so buries you deeper in SOM. Bo: Ron has expressed some agreement with my entries on this thread, but I've grown a bit wary, no sooner has a reasonable post arrived from Ron before another "kills" the first and his above is an example. "The DQ/SQ divide ...etc." possibly means that (he sees) the MOQ as a 4th. level pattern which it isn't: The 4th level is a MOQ pattern and according to the container logic a smaller such can't contain the bigger, but who needs logic on this forum? Pirsig's on "killing intellectual patterns" means that intellect's S/O is what one must free oneself from before the MOQ's moral universe can be reached. That intellectualizing only brings one deeper into SOM is correct enough, but in Ron's view this means that the MOQ is intellect and must be transcended to reach Nirvana. -------------------- Chris: > This is simply not right at all - I feel. What you are talking about > is Zen. Not the MOQ. Furthermore, this, I fear, is exactly the kind of > talk that will kill the MOQ. Agreement this far: > The MOQ is a theory - it isnt the Dynamic Quality it talks about as > well we all know, and it can never be. The DQ/SQ divide brings about a > new way of interpreting the world - but thats what we do with the MOQ > - we interpret. Even the WORDS Dynamic Quality brings us away from it. The notion of a Quality beyond the MOQ brings on an Quality/DQ//SQ "metaphysics" and if Quality is to be kept outside THIS one another QUALITY/Quality//DQ///SQ emerges. Give up the idea of a Quality outside the MOQ, the two are identical. Also the idea of words as inferior is untenable. Language is the sea we swim in. > But it is still better than the SOM. Thats why we fight for it. If > anyone here wishes to save Quality from intellectualizing I suggest > you try Zen out. Well, although MOQ metaphysically is what contains the static intellectual level, there is some level-like relationship between the two. LILA accuses intellect of having forgotten its social roots, but the same charge can be directed against the moqists who claim that intellectualizing is the great sin. Here I think we agree Chris. It has worked quite well for the last 1400 years or so > - but please dont talk about it, dont try to put names on it, and > DONT confuse it with the MOQ. > The MOQ is a theory, one that may bring about Better Days for mankind > - but that makes it something. Static. Not DQ. Not God. Not Zen. but a > Good theory. Again intellect's S/O roots shows - in this case of MOQ as a mere theory - but from the MOQ we see beyond intellect, to levels before the "reality as a theory" divide, chiefly the social level when human beings didn't have an inkling of their existence being a theory or a mythology or any other of intellect's "logies". Bo. 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/
