[Bo] but many of you folks keep insisting that the MOQ is some arbitrary division of a Quality from eternity. F.ex. that SOM was a "moq" .... OK, this I will direct to Arlo because he raised that issue.
[Arlo] Why direct to me? I just quoted Pirsig. "There already is a metaphysics of Quality. A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of Quality - the first slice of undivided experience is into subjects and objects." (LILA) Actually, I thought I had presented this in agreement to what you were saying, that the MOQ is an active, participatory "Weltanschauung" or "Way" or "context in which we think". Before the MOQ, this "Way" was SOM. No? I think, if we take the Pirsig quote at face value, and say that "all metaphysics are metaphysics of Quality", then in contrast to "SOM", Pirsig's metaphysics would be something like "DSM" (Dynamic-Static Metaphyics). Or, in other words, both SOM and DSM are an MOQ. In this case "OQ" becomes a redundancy, and we say that both SOM and DSM are an M. So we have Quality, and then we have a "Way" or "context in which we think" that is Metaphysics (with a capital "M"), and that context is informed by the (sometimes unarticulated, socially reproduced) dominant split a culture adheres to, either SOM or DSM (or the Indian World-view in which ghosts were real). Then moving past that, we have "intellectual patterns", the systematic attempts to define that context which we call "a metaphysics" (lower-case "m"). No? Yes? Maybe? Arlo should switch to decaf? 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/
