Bo, It is my understanding that what one of the larger misconceptions and problematic assumptions that SOM makes is taking thoughts about reality for reality itself. Pirsig, to my understanding states that Reality (Quality) is indefineable. Any definition or description is static Quality which includes thoughts both abstract and concrete which influences expereince both abstract and concrete. MoQ is a thought, a theory about reality, is it not? therefore it is a static conception. This is how it fits in with dynamic quality and why Pirsig associates it with Quality. Reality and our expereince is Quality. Our expereince is static. The cutting edge of that expereince verges on the dynamic, the fountain head of expereince. Decay is also dynamic. Form of any kind is static. Form, as Ham states is created by value, value, it might be said, is the most fundemental form. The potential of difference.
________________________________ From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2008 3:51:34 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Reason=SOM. Ron, Craig, All. 5 Nov. Ron wrote (to Craig): > I think that too often people here DO think that MoQ IS reality. It > is not. It is a static concept of reality, One of many possible menus. > Ham most accurately pegged it when he stated: Ultimate reality is not > defined by either SOM or MOQ. It is not subject or object, relations > or difference, but is the "potentiality for difference" > And I say bravo to those who understand this. Probably one of most > profound statements offerd here in quite some time. I would have thought that Ron, having written a couple of most "to the point" posts directed my way, wouldn't fall for Craig's "menu" observation which is Pirsig's, but nevertheless one of his most non- quality such. In fact the menu/reality distinction is one of SOM's countless S/Os: All theories, utterings, statements ... whatever ... are subjective "menus" about an objective reality beyond our reach. Pirsig's original achievement is enormous, but his goofs must be pointed out, we are not in North Korea. The menu argument is one because if so MOQ's DQ isn't the real article, a still greater MOQ emerges: Super-Quality - slash - DQ/SQ which requires another ...."ad absurdum". In fact Pirsig HAS "recanted" by stating that Quality is the DQ of MOQ. Ask Anthony! This possibly has its origin in the "finger pointing to the moon" allegory which tries to evade the language enigma .... created by intellect or SOM to a subjective something that just describes something else. In the MOQ proper, language is a social pattern that (at that level) weren't subjective because that level has no S/O, but a means to approach the forces or gods. Language was adapted by intellect to convey its S/O pattern that affected language in a retro action. Enough, I guess it's water on goose backs (ZAMM altered a bit) Craig tends to balk at the thought of the menu/reality dichotomy being intellect and says, "Well, the divisions were there for the MOQ - as intellect - to discover", and you have to say, "Where were they? Point to them!" And Craig gets a little confused and wonders what this is all about anyway, and still believes the menu/reality has always been.. 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/ 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/
