Ron, Marsha, Craig, Mati and all interested in the Menu/Reality issue. 6 Nov.
Bo: > Intellect forces us to use the S/O > glasses that among other creates the menu/reality dualism. Ron: > As far as I know those S/O glasses do not make that distinction. > It takes the menu as reality. It is the MoQ glasses which makes that > distinction. The menu/reality being SQ/DQ respectivly. Then Craig said: > IMHO the menu is the MoQ, the list of what is real & their relationships. > (Just as a menu is the list of food.) Reality is Quality (ZMM) or Dynamic > Quality + Static Quality (Lila). DQ is more fundamental than SQ, but they > are both real. (You can go out in public without your [imaginary] friend, > but not without your [real] clothes.) ... ... which is the original Pirsig statement (The MOQ just a theory about Quality). Craig doesn't not take the infinite regress of "metaphysics" this causes, into consideration but right now to Ron's assertion that SOM "essence" is the menu-reality UNITY while MOQ's is its DIFFERENCE. : > 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. First of all SOM is a MOQ creation that characterize the new attitude that emerged with the Greeks and, after much struggle, conquered the Western "mind" (in MOQ this becomes the 4th level IMO) So inside the SOM there is no SOM only the Mind/Matter reality which is supposed to have been from eternity and will last to eternity. Now, there is lay SOM and academical SOM. The Smiths and Joneses have no inkling of theories as subjective and reality as objective and of problems therein. These may be "... taking thoughts about reality for reality itself." But "academy" is aware of the thoughts/reality chasm and the problems it creates. > 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. Yes, Dynamic Quality is by definition indefinable > MoQ is a thought, a theory about reality, is it not? Whoa! Here is the crux. The MOQ rejects the subject/object distinction - of which "thought/reality" is a sub-set - and introduces the Dynamic/Static (Quality) distinction as existences fundament. Ergo there are no thoughts as different from reality in the MOQ. All S/Os are relegated to its 4th. leve ... IMO > therefore it is a static conception. No, the DQ/SQ distinction is the MOQ itself and cant fit into one of its own lesser parts (the container logic) > This is how it fits in with dynamic quality and why Pirsig associates > it with Quality. What fits? > Reality and our expereince is Quality. Our expereince is static. As said before waves are water thus "experience is quality" , but it's the waves we are concerned with, thus "our experience is static". Agree. > 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. Fine, Ham's is - as I managed to unearth - an early "moqer", no small feat, but back to the MOQ as static which makes (MOQ's) DQ "static" and I wonder how this inconsistency could avoid Pirsig, However he was/is concentrated on Quality as primary and the MOQ became some afterthought, however it's just as primary. OK, this we may discuss later. 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/
