Andrè and Platt On 16 Nov. you wrote:
Bodvar before: > I think the map/terrain or "understood/presumed reality" analogy is > misleading. Quality isn't the terrain with the MOQ a map - this is > merely more SOM. Andre: > And this was exactly what I was trying to say Bodvar, and I think I > mistakenly blamed your SOL for this through complete > misinterpretation. I apologise and take my hat off for you...if I had > one. First, many thanks to Platt and you for the vote of confidence in an earlier post, I may sound like a Jesuit, but ever since my ZAMM's days (mid seventies) I felt that here was a thinker that had the mind/matter monster by its throat by making it Quality's creation and calling it "intellect" in his first MOQ. But with LILA the selfsame intellectual (level) had become somewhat diluted, meaning that the throat grip had gone. Also Pirsig's self-effacing "MOQ just another metaphysics" *) in the Aristotelian (SOM) sense of a subjective map of the objective terrain undermines the MOQ and opened up for Marsha-like (just exemplifying, bless her) use of senses as less-than-real varieties of an inconceivable reality out there as an example of MOQ's Static/Dynamic split. *) Quality=Reality doesn't mean anything before the DQ/SQ configuration. The source of much confusion is that Pirsig says that SOM postulates a "reality" which is subject/object-divided. It doesn't! It postulate a S-reality and an O-reality full stop! If SOM had done the former it would have admitted to something ahead of the S/O and thus been a MOQ-like metaphysics. Bodvar 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/
