[Bo] I'm not completely stupid, but a sine or whatever wave is no wave without a peak and a valley like a coin must have a front and a rear side, as 'in' is dependent on 'out' and 'up' is on 'down'. Isn't this saying
that there are nothing without its contrast i.e. no monisms? To see the mutual dependency is - well - a great pastime, but it's a "cul d'sac" as the French says. Ron: There is no "word" with out it's contrast to derive meaning. [Bo] Is the mind/body dualism suddenly fundamental, not two sides of the same coin? OK, I'll not taunt you, the S/O was fundamental before the Dynamic/Static and the mind/body one of its many offsprings, soul/body the "religious" variety. Ron: I agree, and you really have something there. DQ/SQ and S/O are terms for The same split. The first division of definition in linguistic terms. Once that is made the illusion of the metaphysical Mind/Body distinction Emerges from that first split in meaning. [Krimel] The Taoists had established static and dynamic as the fundamental metaphysical duality 2,000 plus years before the MoQ came along. Pirsig is merely restating this in western terms and showing how it fits into and resolves problems in western philosophy. Ron: What he really does is use the eastern linguistic interpretive "first Split" of Active/Passive. He uses the terms DQ/SQ to support his re-definition Of the English term Quality as the active form of experience and the Passive form experience in linguistic terms. [Krimel] All of the different versions of the problem I have mentioned in this context are statements of the same problem. For example in the I/Thou version there is no fundamental difference between you and my smelly sneakers. My sneakers are not me they are a Thou. There is a fundamental difference between the way I experience my sneakers and the way I experience my foot. My experience of other individuals is no different. Other people are 'other' than me. My experience of their behavior is more complex but my knowledge of them relies on sensory data that is of a different character than my experience of my own body and thoughts. [Bo] You don't recognize the level arrangement and see all (mind/body, self/not self) distinctions as subsets of the I/Thou one and - furthermore - claim that Buddhism has resolved it, but if the resolution is based on "thou" an internal construction in the respective individuals, then the external/internal distinction remains .. which IS a S/O subset. It's nice Eastern mysticism with such resolutions but - as said - a dead end. Ron: Not necessarily, what the active/passive DQ/SQ interpretation permits Is conceptualizing reality as in motion rather than dead motionless and absolute. It is a more accurate way of conceptualizing experience. That is one thing it affords us, another is the realization that this Split only manifests in the description of experience not experience Itself. Therefore the mind/body problem is one of linguistic grammatical Paradox and nothing more. Problem solved. [Krimel] It is not that I don't recognize the level arrangement as useful. I just don't recognize it as anything particularly special, profound or original. I mentioned the Buddhist view of "Thou art that" but make no other than it is one way of seeing the problem. Pirsig puts it this way: "Since all knowledge comes from sensory impressions and since there's no sensory impression of substance itself, it follows logically that there is no knowledge of substance. It's just something we imagine. It's entirely within our own minds." I believe in western philosophy this is call phenomenology. The dead end is that for skeptics there is no resolution to this problem other than to call it absurd and ignore it. Ron: I couldn't agree more Krimel. [Bo] Pirsig agrees with you that the DQ/SQ (the MOQ) are mere modifiers of Quality. That's the very problem IMO, Quality is of course Dynamic Quality, the night is no more dynamic than the day or vice versa so that metaphor is irrelevant. Ron: The problem is that the English word "quality" that Pirsig re-defined As (Quality), central to his metaphysic, is STILL a word for experience. A linguistic conceptual understanding of experience as a whole. Not the whole of experience itself. It sits outside of the cultural Intellectual paradigm because it suggests understanding terms in An active/passive form rather than the cultural status quo of Subjects and Objects in linguistic terminology. [Krimel] I would like to think you are right but Pirsig does confuse Quality and DQ in much of Lila and has said that it is probably ok for everybody to just lump them together. Ron: I think he began using his own terminology on his own theory And began confusing himself in his own MoQ paradox. when he tried To explain it, the worse it became. There are many messages in his books if we connect them we can see where He was going and what he meant but he got tripped up in the paradigm Shift that if he were aware of he would have explained and avoided. And we'd have an MoQ that would be of unquestionable validity and common sense. But until it issues from his pen, we are paralyzed in conflicting Meaning. I think I'm going to take it upon myself to write him. If anything I might give him a good chuckle. I know he doesn't Want to chat about this stuff anymore but we can just straighten This one issue it would all be good to go. Empirically it would Be much more difficult to refute his ideas because it would be Perceived as the ultimate In objectivity. I sense this is the angle Bo is coming from with SOL but we wouldn't need SOL if people Embraced the notion that DQ/SQ as a more accurate description of Commonly held s/o Split explaining the mind/body paradox as a Descriptive phenom. Of language. Language is part and parcel Of the social/intellectual entity of culture and as per Pirsigs Own description of those levels, commonly held as subjective Experience. With the beauty of explaining the levels in DQ/SQ Magnus's "Hole" disappears with social and biological Inter-merging with one another. Static patterns manifesting themselves Dynamically. Huge explanatory power in meaning in this way rather Than the S/O method of divided entities or levels acting upon one another. Which has weak explanatory power. The evolutionary aspect falls right into place in this Method of understanding because it places the subjective (dynamic) Experience at the head of the hierarchy, self preservation Is the highest good. In evolutionary terms. Based in immediate Experience The most moral pattern. It all starts to come together In cohesive meaning, MoQ concepts supporting one another Rather than conflicting. Thanks for allowing me to poke my fat ass into your discussion. 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/
