Correction: Ooops. In the first paragraph that I wrote, the word propagative should be replaced with prerogative. - Marsha
At 01:12 PM 4/25/2008, you wrote: >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/ 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/
