Hi Andrè 3 Feb. you wrote:
> Well, Bodvar, not shocked but taken aback a bit. At the end of this > post you suggest not to use anymore sophistry but let me put this to > you; It ain't easy. Having been so long at it as myself, seemingly gone through every possible and impossible twist and turn, then when someone enters and says that he/she agrees I believes that it goes for the whole train of reasoning and it's a let-down to learn that not even the basics are accepted. For instance dear Chris (Kristofferson) also came on in support of the SOL and then .... I believe it was the point of the MOQ and Quality being identical that shocked him too. > Quality is NOT part and parcel of the MoQ. The MOQ is part and parcel > of Quality. As Pirsig says: 'To have something is to possess it, and to > possess something is to dominate it. Nothing dominates Quality. If > there's domination and possession involved, it's Quality that dominates > and possesses (the MoQ). (Lila p 142, my substitution). I am not sure > what ramifications this has for the MoQ but do understand that Quality > cannot be 'contained' within a metaphysical system. (Can someone help > my out here please?) You will certainly get "help" from everyone in this forum EXCEPT Phaedrus of ZAMM who is a merciless logician. And if MOQ's DQ/SQ is to replace SOM's S/O what good it is to perpetuate the arch S/O of theories as subjective different from the objective reality they treats. Metaphysically that is, on the intellectual level however the S/O distinction rules, and we spent most of our time at the static Netherlands. Bodvar before > > 'OK as said to DMB if the original Quality is seen as =DQ and this > > spawning the static levels. Fine! But it is as if Pirsig subscribes to > > SOM with Quality objectively "out there" and the DQ/SQ some theoretical > > word-play inside the subjective language realm. This is my eternal > > complaint. > > Very short, the harm is that the MOQ doesn't make it out of SOM. > > Pirsig says that Quality is dynamic and the MOQ is static, but it's > > plain that here dynamic=objective and static=subjective. To turn > > Phaedrus most apt Newton Gravity argument (ZAMM) against him "Where was > > Quality before Pirsig"? The MOQ is the Quality Reality!!!!!!!!!!'. Andre: > This shocked me more Bodvar. > Quality cannot be defined.Pirsig has stated this over and over again. Right, the MOQ says that DQ can't be defined, isn't that enough. Is it a definition just to name it? An even higher Quality outside the MOQ is now defined (for the reason of naming it) and requires a still higher Quality ad absurdum. > He was reluctant to write a metaphysics (remember?) An important point. When Pirsig started the metaphysical session he says "...no one living in a coherent universe can avoid metaphysics" meaning that mankind is suspended in an interpretation of experience. Caveman (social level) interpreted the lights in the sky as gods and goddesses and they did not say: "look, these lights are just symbols" the symbol/reality distinction arrived with the intellectual level > because people would object and haggle about this and disagree about > that. Exactly for the reason that the MOQ began as an intellectual pattern and there SOM's "metaphysics/objective reality" rules. But - as said - this was not so at the social level and will not be so at the MOQ (that transcends intellect) I was once naïve enough to believed that this argument would be understood immediately, but .... alas. > Anyway, he was left with concepts and metaphor ( yes, using language) > to convey, to communicate what he was getting at. To cite the Role of > Evolution..paper again: Is it Anthony McWatt's PhD? > 'Though there are no objects or subjects as traditionally thought of > within the MOQ, for pragmatic reasons (i.e. it makes human existence > much easier by employing concepts) Pirsig terms the continually > changing flux of immediate reality "Dynamic Quality" while any concept > abstracted from this flux is termed a pattern of "static quality" > [*15<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=mjs&ver=JP3Bof4k2f > w&am=R-AwhcT3cCKZRf3iwfb7_Q_T#Ref_15> *]. It is important to keep in > mind that "Dynamic Quality" is not a concept but only a referring term > for immediate experience i.e. Bless Anthony, but do you think a paper that REALLY pursues the Quality Idea proper would be sanctioned within the "Church of Reason"? ACADEMY IS SOM!!!!! Dynamic Quality" while any concept abstracted from this flux is termed a pattern of "static quality" In ZAMM on the first proto moq "pre.intellectual - intellectual" it's nothing about this being PRE-CONCEPT - CONCEPT (or concrete/abstract), rather pre-S/O - S/O. And you don't find anything about it later ...except in the "Summary" but here the whole MOQ is deemed "static" because it is written in words. > But if you persist/insist Bodvar, please explain what the MoQ needs to > do to get out of the tentacles of SOM. PLEASE!!! First and foremost to give up the notion of the MOQ being an intellectual pattern. This is both illogical (the 4th. level is a MOQ subset, not the other way round) and disastrous for the same reason that the MOQ becomes a SOM "pattern" Hope it helps? 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/
