Bo:
> Recovering from the shock of being called right by
> you ;-) ....
SA: It's amazing what affirmations will do. At this
point it's not even a debate.
Bo:
> ...it isn't DQ that I call a "meta-level" but the
> MOQ!!!!(how many
> exclamation marks are needed for it to sink in?)
SA: Maybe one more, but you didn't put one more, and
it's too late now. hahahaha.... Anyways...
What the heck does a meta-level mean anyways?
I assume before the first split that Quality is
undefined, not even split for that matter.
Bo:
> In his "Summary" Pirsig says:
>
> The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and
> should be
> separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks
> about. Like
> the rest of the printed philosophic tradition it
> doesn't
> change from day to day, although the world it
> talks about
> does.
> If he says the MOQ is static it must necessarily be
> static intellectual, no?
SA: The reality of Quality is undefined in any
absolute way. It is this absolution that makes the
moq static, for, Pirsig is pointing out, in this
context, that the moq is static if you want a
definition of the moq or as he said if you want
"...the printed philosophic tradition..." Pirsig is
talking about the moq aspect that is "...the printed
philosophic tradition...". But Pirsig reminds the
person he is talking with that quality has a dynamic
aspect that is undefined which is ingrained in "...the
world it talks about..." This "world" is primary
reality, which he states is "Dynamic Quality". It is
the context in which his discussion with this person
you quoted that must be kept in mind.
Bo:
> The MOQ is neither static nor
> dynamic, it is the
> the very DQ/SQ universe. "..What it talks about"
> ...is equally
> nonsensical, nothing is outside language, spoken or
> written or the
> silent kind we call "thinking".
SA: Yes. The moq is neither static or dynamic.
Quality is neither static or dynamic. Yet, when your
asked about the moq, well, you make it static in order
to answer the questions, such as in the interview.
This is why, I think, Pirsig doesn't involve himself
in the moq. His more or less living the moq and
doesn't want it to get clogged up with any kind of
absolutisms where people will quote 'Pirsig said this
and Pirsig said that' and take what Pirsig said as the
Truth, for meanwhile Pirsig might be speaking from a
certain lived context that at this point in his life
no matter what he says our differing perspectives
will, well, differ on what he meant due to the context
of Pirsig's whole life in which he was speaking from.
Thus, the whole bike ride, it provides context that
means a lot to the philosophy. The sailboating...
means tons. The experiences of these... mean tons,
they say something that can't be totally written
about, these concepts go a long ways. I talk about
walking in the woods, but it this experience goes a
long, long way more than can be said in a mere
thousand page book. That would just deaden the
experience, if anything, for not your not walking in
the woods, your reading a thousand page book about it.
That's counterproductive.
Bo:
> To use an Oriental metaphor, it is just another
> finger pointing toward the moon. The static language
of
> the Metaphysics of Quality will never capture the
> Dynamic reality of the world but some fingers point
> better than others and as the world changes, old
pointers
> and road maps tend to lose their value.
> Isn't the finger metaphor a result of somebody
> thinking it out and
> formulating it by language? To try to circumvent
> language is self-
> defying. It can only impress simpletons:
> Religious orthodoxy is composed of old pointers.
> Classical science is now an old road map, and
> modern
> science keeps looking for new ones. It is this
> looking for
> new pointers, not the pointer itself, that is
> the essence of
> Dynamic philosophy. What is meant by Dynamic
> philosophy was explained best in my introduction
> to
> "LILA's Child".*
> A religion is a social pattern, while science is
> intellectual, but it's
> no "old map", science works along the same principle
> as always.
> Pirsig may mean physics which has changed radically
> and now
> defies the old concepts - for example - of
> "substance".
SA: By "science works along the same principle" I
take this to mean, in the context I read above, that
the same principle of science and religion is the
"looking for something better", the "finger pointing
at the moon" that each of those do.
Bo:
> OK, the gist is that the static patterns belongs to
> different levels
> for the reason that they have something in common.
> All social
> patterns have some "social" aspect to them, all
> biological
> patterns have some "living" aspect to them, hence
> all intellectual
> patterns must have something in common. To you I
> guess the
> commonality is "abstract" or "theoretical", but you
> forget that
> these terms are part of the "S" side of SOM that the
> MOQ rejects.
> This it must be the complete S/O aggregate which is
> intellect's
> value.
SA: Here again. I've always said that the
"aggregate" is good. The "s/o aggregate" I agree
with. It is during this aggregation that I find
subjective and objective 'aggregating' into something
else. They come together and point out something else
that is intellectual.
Bo:
> It follows that the MOQ which is based on the
> DQ/SQ-distinction
> can by no twist of logic be an intellectual pattern.
SA: hmmm... maybe..., but the whole jist of this I
think is that to contemplate such a first split
involves intellect. I don't think we can separate out
the process in steps that rids this first split. The
first split happens all the time, in an omniescent way
on every level. Each level wakes up to this first
split in their own way. Without the 'wake-up' without
the first split, then no way of knowing this first
split, for this first split is experienced by us in
some way. If you can ask yourself 'where does this
first split find experience in our experience?' and
come up with a good answer that can't be a static
pattern, well, you then come up with a static pattern
that is not mentioned in the moq. This is question
for you. I find the static patterns involved in the
moq are the only ways to experience and find out about
this first split. Your trying to explain something
that seems to jump into a place that is indescribable
and not able to be experienced - your jumpin' off the
screen dude and I can't see where your at.
dog on the run chain,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
