At 04:07 AM 4/22/2008, you wrote:
>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

Greetings Bo,

My point is that to put DQ in a box, or metalevel, is a definition 
(maybe visual) of containment.

When you talk about god, I haven't any idea what you are talking about.

Marsha








Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...  

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/

Reply via email to