At 04:02 AM 4/24/2008, you wrote: >Krimel > >22 Apr: > > > [Bo] > > 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. > > > [Krimel] > > There is no platypus here. This is what the MoQ says. There is an > > undefined reality that we make up stories about. > >It's very much a paradox. The MOQ professed to do away with >the paradoxes induced by SOM - the notion of an objective reality >that we make up subjective theories about. At the start it looked >simple, but became more and more complex (can't go through it >all) and the above Kantian thesis is the ultimate frustration. > >By introducing the DQ/SQ split in its place - and relegating the >old S/O the role of its own intellectual level - the MOQ would >have done the promised job, but then Pirsig went and said that >the DQ/SQ weren't fundamental, the real chasm was between >Quality and the MOQ. I kind of understand why you are so happy >about it, you never "bought" the MOQ and by this you see the it >"disarmed". Why the other participants don't see the plot is more >of a mystery. > > > [Bo] > > 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. > > > [Krimel] > > Maybe the box diagrams are not as famous as you think. I have no clue > > what you are talking about here. DQ/SQ is a split that divides > > Quality. Quality can be recognized as forms in stasis or forms in > > flux. It's pretty simple. > >Try to muster your logic. The DQ/SQ dualism STARTS WITH >THE SAID SPLIT, no Quality before this division and no such >are still sitting atop of it all. You see this trick exposed in case of >SOM (on page 243 in my ZMM) where Pirsig makes it look like a >"reality" is ahead of the subject/object-division. This is wrong, it's >directly S/O-divided, no reality before or afterwards. > >And this is about all, try to concentrate on these points. > >Bo
Greetings Bo, I don't see such split. It's ALL Quality. The MOQ is monistic. The static levels are just mind differentiating patterns. The patterns are mind making arbitrary, but useful (hopefully) boundaries. The Dynamic/static split is also just a useful split. Since Quality (DQ) "is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known", all we can talk about are the patterns (analogies). And if we are talking about them, it is theory (intellectual). And the best anyone can hope for is that this thinking is mostly deliberate (intellectual) rather than unconscious (social). At least that is how I think about it. 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/
