Greetings Bo, At 11:22 AM 4/25/2008, you wrote: >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. > >Bo: >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 difference between ocean and waves counts for you. Ocean, waves, both water. That's what counts for me, that they are both water. Actually, they're both words, analogy, empty. But for this little chat, I am content to say they are both water. You may prefer interpreting them as different. That's your propagative, but that doesn't make me wrong. In my book, the MOQ is a monism. Why do you cling to a dualistic point-of-view? > > "The patterns are mind making arbitrary, but useful (hopefully) > > boundaries.... > >Bo: >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. I don't see mind as separate from matter. There's only quality. Unfortunately I am stuck using language that doesn't provide an easier way to talk in monistic terms. Mind is a process, a process of change. Quality isn't an object, and neither is mind. Mind is static and dynamic quality, both Quality. > > > > 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). > >Bo: >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? The problem is one of naming and defining patterns, then thinking they are discrete. There is only Quality. >Bo: >BTW, where did you find the term "indivisible" regarding Quality? "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity." (LILA, Chapter 5) > > 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. There is no discrete "my mind", there is a constellation of ever-changing collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value. Language seems to be patterns primarily within the realm of the social and intellectual levels. 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/
