Ham
9 Feb. you wrote:
> You know, I've been reading your posts regularly for three years and,
> like Marsha, have never really understood your argument with Pirsig.
> Each message is articulated in clear English and treats the alleged
> issue a bit differently than the last, but I still don't see what the
> issue is.
Magnus Berg had one splendid idea, namely the levels as
dimensions. It's generally realized that so-called flat-landers of a
two-dimensional world won't see a three-dimensional existence.
Thus a biological entity won't see (the good of) the social level etc.
upwards. Now, the MOQ is no level yet it has a level-like
relationship with intellect, and for the intellect-dwellers any MOQ-
based reasoning will sound as sheer gibberish.
I should have left it here, but who can resist ;-)
> I see no problem defined in your first three sentences. Only in the
> final sentence do you allude to a problem ("mystery'), and it seems to
> be one of your own making. Where does Pirsig postulate that DQ spawns
> the MOQ?
(NB. The Romantic/Classic became Dynamic/Static so I use the
latter)
In ZAMM Chapter 20. On top is a box called "Quality Reality" that
is the DQ/SQ split. This is valid as diagrams goes, the "SOM
Reality" on the other hand is the S/O split, but it looks as if both the
MOQ and SOM has a common REALITY "box" and the big thing is
to change the name from "Reality" to "Quality". which says
absolutely nothing and is deeply wrong.
Long before the diagram session Pirsig postulated a pre
something ahead of the "SOM Reality", this he called Quality and
must necessarily be the Dynamic component of the "Quality
Reality" .. no? Thus at the top of the page - safely removed from
any boxes - a text should have said: "Below is the Quality Reality"
and then a box called "Dynamic Quality" with a vertical line down to
"Static Quality".
> If the problem is one of language or semantics, it can be remedied
> simply by restating the premises more logically. If it is a
> conceptual problem, however, either the theory itself is wrong or we
> do not comprehend it correctly. You say that Anthony "spots the flaw
> but merely reinforces it." What Anthony reinforces is the fact that
> the MOQ is a set of (man-made) concepts, which your previous assertion
> "DQ spawns the MOQ" seems to ignore:
NB! I regard the "conceptual/pre-conceptual" split to be a variety of
the S/O master-pattern.
The problem is that Pirsig imposes a Quality/MOQ "metaphysics"
(Quality=pre-conceptual and the MOQ=conceptual) that overrides
MOQ's DQ/SQ. And if this this is taken for granted SOM'splatypis
pop up. "Pre-language" conveyed by language? I have the sinking
feeling that Pirsig - here - has become an intellect-dweller and
doesn't see the Q dimension.
> Have you not confused the concepts with the reality? Isn't this
> precisely your "problem"?
Not confused, but the MOQ doesn't regard SOM's "language/
realty" as fundamental. In its hey.day SOM postulated the said
schism to be fundamental, then along comes the MOQ and
postulates the DQ/SQ as fundamental. However the S/O is not
thrown in some metaphysical trash can, but is relegated the role
as MOQ's static intellectual level.
And now enough! Q-dimensional gibberish.
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/
