Andre & DMB 6 Mar. :
> dmb said to Andre: > Yes, static quality is patterned and Dynamic Quality is not > patterned. But this doesn't mean that concepts (SPOV) are unreal. In > the art gallery analogy, where we can look at a variety of sets of > static patterns, all the paintings are equally real. If you were to > pick one and say that it's the real one while the others aren't, that > would be an illusion. It's illusory in the sense that you'd be taking > derived concepts as more real than the reality from which they were > derived. I suppose your question arises from something like that. Is the MOQ itself among the paintings in the gallery? > Andre replied:So the MoQ as a 'derived conceptual framework' is not > different from the reality (DQ/SQ) it describes? If you agree with > this, then what is language as a pattern of value (both spoken and > written)? Does it exist in an 'objective/subjective' sense (as SOM > would have it) or does the MoQ challenge this? If so, in what way? Is > this a legitimate line of questioning or not (in the sense that; "Am I > going wacko now?") This is the least wackoish comment I have read and puts the finger on the sore spot of the pre-concept/concept "camp" You most aptly ask if language exist in its S/O capacity (as a subjective shadow of an objective reality) something the MOQ certainly challenges because it challenges the SOM. In the MOQ language no longer exist in that role, but came to be as a social pattern that since followed Q-evolution. > dmb says: Hmmm. To be honest, these questions don't make much sense to > me, probably because we have different ideas about what the operative > terms actually mean. Further, we have different ideas about them > because Bodvar has confused you. I leave it to Andre to decide. > And that, by the way, is exactly why I criticize his SOL. Believe me, > you're not the first one to be led astray and you probably won't be the > last. In the first sentence, for example, the distinction between DQ > and SQ is construed as the reality described by the MOQ's conceptual > framework but actually that distinction is just part of the MOQ's > conceptual framework. In effect, then, the question becomes something > like, "so the conceptual framework is not different from the conceptual > framework? But the issue concerns the difference between concepts and > reality. DMB isn't able to see the rut the pre-concept/concept has landed him into. If language is seen in this arch-somish way nothing escapes it. I challenge DMB to show me one single phenomenon that escapes language. Even Quality must be told about. Unless one postulates a Quality outside of the MOQ, but upon discovering that this also is corrupted by language, postulating one above that again ....ad infinity. > Let me try > a different approach to try to get at it. There is an interesting > parallel between chapter 29 of ZAMM and chapter 29 of Lila. It's one I > hadn't noticed before and now I wonder if the two books aren't filled > with such parallels. Anyway, in this case, the parallel can be seen to > center around the issue of empiricism. In ZAMM we see that Plato is > essentially anti-empirical while in Lila we see that Pirsig and James > are racially empirical. The difference could hardly be more stark. In > ZAMM we see that for Plato the abstract concept of of "horseness" is > more real than actual horses. For Plato, the living creatures we know > in experience are seen as merely fleeting and transitory while the > ideal form of horseness is fixed and permanent and so that's what's > real. And that's what he does to Quality. He converts it into a fixed, > permanent idea. No one disagrees with this. Plato and Aristotle were the SOM forefathers and their respective dichotomies (to become S/O) is what MOQ's DQ/SQ replaces. > Radical empiricists, on the other hand, would say that's exactly > backwards. Instead, they say abstract concepts are derived from > experience, that experience comes first and abstractions are secondary > and are only meaningful and useful insofar as they refer to the > experiences from which they are derived. Plato & Co. did not "treat" language, but OK. by and by SOM transformed language into its S/O mold: a subjective shadow of objective reality. And - again - Phaedrus did NOT speak about Quality as pre-concept, but pre-intellect and that intellect = SOM. In LILA however Pirsig agrees with James about Dynamic/ Concept and the damage was done. Can't you get this David?. > And so it is with the conceptual framework of the MOQ. That's why there > is a discrepancy between concepts and reality, where reality is > experience itself. The MOQ has two levels before language arrived at the 3rd. and there (on the social level) language was not (still isn't) regard as secondary but as a most powerful means to interact with the "gods and forces" in rituals. Only with the 4th. level (SOM) was language transformed into concepts that disturbs some holy unity. . And the rest is just more of the same. 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/
