Marsha On 24 April:
Bo (to Krimel): > >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. Marsha: > 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. I have often used the ocean/wave metaphor, the waves are water too, and in that sense the MOQ is a monism, but it's the waves AS DIFFERENT from the smooth surface that counts, and makes it a dualism. > "The patterns are mind making arbitrary, but useful (hopefully) > boundaries.... The MOQ rejects the S/O distinction, thus there's neither mind nor matter inside the MOQ. If it's "mind" that splits Quality than it's "mind" that perceives Quality and in that case Quality exists only in (our) "mind" which becomes reality's ground and a Metaphysics of Mind is called for. > 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). Right, DQ is indefinable and as such different from SQ and no problem arises until the mere designation "DQ" a definition that requires a Quality beyond. But isn't this Quality beyond also desecrated by speaking about it and requires another Quality ...etc. ad infinity? BTW, where did you find the term "indivisible" regarding Quality? > 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. What is not conveyed by language - written, spoken or silent as thoughts in (your) mind? This of language as something secondary is part of intellect's (SOM's) subject/object premises so it's quite an irony that the metaphysics which is to replace SOM adopted its premises. 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/
