Andrè and Steve & Group.
18 Nov. you wrote:
after Platt had said:
> > We're trying here to subsume SOM, but it's hard to the snap out of our
> > SOM trance. Just ask Bo. :-)
Andrè:
> I am trying just as hard to penetrate this intellectual immune system
> called SOM, which has been with us for a few thousand years ( the S/O
> division, arising out of the social level became the intellectual
> level) And the more I think about what Bodvar is trying to say, i.e
> saving DQ from the tentacles of SOM
Houston I think we have a breakthrough. Only a superfluous remark.
Yes, I try to save the DQ from SOM's tentacles, but because DQ
exists in the MOQ the latter must be saved .. whole-salely.
> (which is the absolute essence of the MoQ), the more I think he is
> correct.
OK, here you say it!
> To put it in simple language ( I like this because I am simple and we
> need to understand eachother) The DQ 'part' cannot be intellectualised
> about, it cannot be part of the intellectual level ( the big container
> into the little one?
Your "simplicity " is appreciated and says the same as my formal
reasoning: The MOQ is the QUALITY SYSTEM thus it cannot be a
static intellectual pattern which is a MOQ sub-pattern.
> Ha! DQ gave rise to intellect!)
Right, the static intellectual pattern is a MOQ sub-pattern (DQ gave
rise to it)
> And, as Pirsig suggests DQ is 'half' of reality (in the Quality= DQ/SQ
> split).
> To then say, as Pirsig does, that the MoQ is (just) an Intellectual
> pattern of values ( In opposition to SOM because the SOM doesn't
> recognise values) is to reduce the MoQ to the SOM level because it
> cannot allow for DQ. In my simple reasoning: it only allows for the
> SQ... and the SQ has been raped by SOM!! IMHO.
Everything rests on the the "MOQ a map of Quality" which is the
source of all troubles for the MOQ.
> If I misrepresent you Bodvar, please tell me,if I misrepresent Pirsig,
> please tell me...I only want to understand the MoQ better.
You are "spot on" and please don't let your good manners knock you
off your perch ..... for instance by Steve Peterson who wrote the 18th.:
> The MOQ is an intellectual description of reality of which the MOQ is a
> part. If the MOQ is not an intellectual pattern, then what do you suppose
> it is?
Steve has been absent and doesn't know the phases we have been
through. If the MOQ is a mere metaphysics (description) then there is
a Quality which isn't DQ and you have a greater "metaphysics". and if
this is also a description, a still greater metaphysics emerges .. ad
infinity. No, the MOQ's DQ is the real thing. Exactly this (being the real
thing) is its taking leave of SOM's eternal (subjective) descriptions of
something (objective) beyond.
> Pirsig claims that everyting fits into a four volume encylcopedia plus
> DQ.
Right, but the static levels are "made of" Value and thus DQ is not
beyond the MOQ.
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/
