Ron 20 Aug. you wrote:
Bo before: > > A paradox is the sure sign that something is wrong with the basic > > assumptions and MOQ says that the S/O assumption is the culprit and > > introduces its own DQ/SQ schism and this plus the static levels provides > > us with a new explanation that makes tons of sense compared to the SOM > Ron: > How do you conceptualize the DQ/SQ schism? If I remember correctly, by > your interpretation,SQ is all we may know, DQ is indefinable. I hope the meaning of your question dawns on me while writing. The MOQ postulates (conceptualizes) a DQ/SQ schism. It says that DQ is the source from which the inorganic level (as its first creation) sprang. The rest of the levels spring from the level below "egged on" by the DQ that saturates all existence. (I like the wave/water example, the waves are static forms of dynamic water) SQ is definitely "all we may know", I believe that is MOQ's central tenet. > Why have a DQ when everything from things to thoughts about things is > SQ? You know even the inorganic level isn't "concrete", forces, energy, fields are intangible yet most effective. OK, that may not be your issue. At least the MOQ has the intellectual level as its last static creation and it is at this level the notion of "things" as different from "thoughts about things" emerged. At the social level (religion the chief social pattern according to Pirsig) there is no such distinction. God does not exist in our thoughts. Thoughts is a word you won't find in pre-intellect texts. NB! We exist in God's thoughts Christendom said after it began to be influenced by the Greeks ...i.e. by the intellectual level.) > In your opinion does this mean MoQ is SQ also? The MOQ is the DQ/SQ reality. Full stop!. Pirsig originally said that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern, meaning a theory about Quality, but THAT violates his own container logic, it violates the MOQ too by creating a "QUALITY//DQ/SQ" metaphysics. He abandoned it later by saying that Quality=DQ, but in the "Summary" from 2005 he repeated the old sentence again, that which DMB clings too and makes the MOQ a SOM subsidiary ...a mere subjective theory. 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/
