DMB and interested parties- 31 Jan.
> Bo said to dmb: > I wrote a longish piece, but have deleted it all, because I know you > will wander off on some tangent. So try to concentrate. dmb says: > Well, okay. But I don't think my response was tangential at all. Bo continued: > If James and Dewey and Northrop agree on an undifferentiated, primary > something ahead of our subject/object reality, and Pirsig joins them, > only adding that this is called "Quality", then the (first ZAMM) MOQ > should have looked like this: Undifferentiated or DQ - slash - > Differentiated or SQ not the: Quality = Undifferentiated or DQ - slash > - Differentiated or SQ. OK, you want to sound as this is something you are hard pressed to understand, but it makes a world of difference. I'll try to spoon- feed you. As shown in the first - SOM - example Pirsig makes it sound as if SOM postulates an "undifferentiated" reality ahead of the S/O which it does NOT. Is this something you understand? Then for the MOQ diagram he swithces the undifferentiated reality into Quality (which is a legal postulate) but instead of drawing a Static Quality "box" besides it (or under) he lets the Quality remain above with another DQ (and SQ) emanating from it, something that .... for the umpteenth time ... makes for the Quality/MOQ super-metaphysics. > dmb says:I don't see what the difference is. Either way reality > (Quality) is divided in two. OK, If you see Quality=Dynamic Quality and this spawning the static levels all is fine with me, but then no more about any Quality "out there" and a theoretical or verbal DQ/SQ "in our minds". If the MOQ is to be a break with SOM the first break must be with this arch-SOM-ish notion. Again enough, the rest of your post was just more of the same. 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/
