Marsha, Krimel, Arlo ..
21 April Marsha wrote:
> > >[Krimel]
> > >I think you are highlighting the problem of confusing Quality and
> > >DQ. Static and Dynamic are aspects of Quality. If we ignore this
> > >then we get the formulation that you give. Another way of seeing
> > >this is that order is a subset of chaos. Order arises as logical
> > >probability from all the probabilities available. But as a
> > >practical matter is still makes sense to distinguish between order
> > >and chaos. Same deal with dynamic and static.
I insert Arlo's here:
> [Arlo] I don't like it either. If we say the DQ-SQ split is the primary
> division of Quality, then how can DQ and Quality be the same thing? What
> is Quality in LILA if the Quality of ZMM is the DQ of LILA? What is the
> Quality that DQ is a division of?
I don't see any problem with Quality being DQ, it removes the
platypus of a Quality outside the MOQ something that
perpetuates the somish (Kantian) problem of an ineffable reality
that we make up theories about, only now the said reality is called
Quality.
The DQ/SQ configuration is the primary axiom , your enigma: "....
how can DQ and Quality be the same thing?..." stems from the
infamous box diagrams that makes the divided entity remain
unscathed behind, it may work for motorcycles, but not for reality.
Your next quandary: "What is Quality in LILA if the Quality of
ZMM is the DQ of LILA?" The Quality of ZAMM gave rise to
subjects and objects (SOM) that became the "Classic" (subtitled
"intellect") part of that moq (no "classic" levels. So you see had
this "intellect" been carried over into the final MOQ all would
have been fine, ZMM and LILA would have been harmonized, as
it is the are worlds apart.
> >[Marsha]
> >I cannot find it, but somewhere RMP explains that the DQ of the MOQ
> >is equivalent to the Quality of ZMM. Maybe Platt knows the location
> >of the exact quote.
> >[Krimel]
> >It was in a letter to Paul Turner in response to a question about
> >this. I remember being horrified not only at the answer itself but
> >the off handed delivery of the response which was kinda like; well,
> >if you want to think of it that way, why not? By conflating Quality
> >and DQ we in effect remove Quality from the MoQ. This would give us
> >the MoDQ. I find this to be absurb but by now it should be obvious
> >that Pirsig has nothing to fear from me at least when it comes to
> >regarding his pronouncements as 'authoritative'.
I also had a hunch that Pirsig had said so - something I credited
him for - but it's not in the Paul Turner letter I constantly refer to,
could you be more specific and provide the actual quote?
> Greetings Krimel,
> Thank you for finding the reference. I remember you stating that too
> much has been said about DQ. Is that true with the exception of your
> definitions? Quality, Dynamic Quality, the Way, NoThingness,
> Emptiness. All are names for something that cannot be conceptionally
> known. Do you disagree?
I don't quite get your point, the fact that reality's (=Quality's)
dynamic component is part of the MOQ can't by no twist of logic
be a "definition" and thus an desecration. I used the example of
religions that postulate a God/World split, but God is still as
sacred. Yet, it struck me just now, this may have wider
ramifications. The pious thinks that God is from before "religion",
is it the same piety that surfaces as a demand about a Quality
from before the MOQ?
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/
