Andre.
On 2 Mar. you wrote:
DMB had said:
> > This "outrageous" claim is exactly what I've been trying to explain.
Andre
> (dmb is referring to Bodvar's claim that Pirsig has stated that 'SOM is
> an moq'). I doubt this very much. I do remember Mr. Pirsig saying that
> the S/O science is a quality intellectual pattern.
DMB:
> > It has everything to do with the other claim we're debating, namely that
> > the MOQ is different from Quality it talks about.
Andre:
> Hi David, interesting. My reading is slightly different to yours. I
> understand that Pirsig, when building his metaphysics, had to make the
> first slice and he sliced Quality into two sections: DQ and SQ 'and
> this became the basic division of his emerging Metaphysics of
> Quality.(Lila p119) I am reading this as the MoQ NOT being 'different
> from the quality it talks about'. I.e the MoQ= DQ/SQ. I think that
> this is also the way Bodvar sees it (Bodvar prick your ears please,
> correct me if I'm wrong!!) and the source of a lot of confusion.
Thanks Andre for joining us in the high country ("No Country for
Old Men") Anyway the "Quality/MOQ" split (that Pirsig introduces
in his "Summary") grates my Q-nerve.
> For me, it clears up the pre-conceptual/ conceptual dichotomy
> suggested as being the workings of language application. Indeed we are
> led to believe so but this occurs only within SOM upon which such
> distinctions are based and are not only posited as such but then
> assumed to be Reality itself. (the 'M' part of the SO).This fallacy is
> something the MoQ has exposed.
That's exactly it. SOM has made language into a subjective,
secondhand reflection of the objective, reality, consequently to be
reality Quality must be pre-language and as the MOQ - as a
written document - is banished to the language realm. But this is
to let SOM in by the back door and resembles another dubious
statement, namely that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern.
Young Phaedrus quit the philosophy course after discovering that
academical philosophy is SOM through and through, but old Pirsig
seems willing to compromise the MOQ to be let inside the once
despised Church of Reason (philosophology).but can that be
done? To academical philosophy all theories are "intellectual" i.e.
created by minds and received by minds and to a metaphysics that
rejects the mind/matter split it looks like "hara-kiri".
It's said that China has absorbed all enemies and made them
Chinese and SOM will surely absorb a MOQ if it enters its
premises. Pirsig may think that PhDs will mean a foot inside the
door and more will be a forced entry - I was under that illusion for a
long time - but am convinced that no concessions must be made.
Advisors will twist any thesis into a somish form. Only Phaedrus
idea of SOM as MOQ's static intellectual level - NOT the MOQ
another intellectual pattern - will do.
> My question, David relates to this in the line where you state:' It
> has everything to do with the difference between DQ and sq'.
> Aren't SPOV's patterns of Quality derived from/ expressions of DQ? But
> have they then lost their 'Quality' status?? Is there a difference?
> Isn't SQ 'patterned' DQ? When I describe myself as a SPOV am I
> describing myself as a concept of SPoV's or as the 'real' patterns? In
> other words, does the description somehow makes the reality of my
> patterns an illusion.
DMB affirms that the "Quality/MOQ" split corresponds to the
Dynamic/Static one and Andre asks if not Static Quality is Quality
too (only patterned) which it definitely is, there is a DQ/SQ split
INSIDE the MOQ, but not another greater chasm between Quality
and 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/
