Krimel to Andre: ZMM is about Tao and Lila is about Yin and Yang. Andre to Krimel:
ZMM:Tao Lila: Tao = DQ/SQ= Yin-Yang interplay/S/O interplay= Lila(DQ/interplay) [Krimel] Uh, ok. I think I disagree but I can't be sure because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Andre: Hi Krimel, I'm trying to accommodate your terminology (conceptualisation) of Yin and Yang with MoQ terminology. My understanding of Taoism is that the 'forces' of Yin and Yang (male/female, receptive/assertive, positive/negative, black/white etc,) are forces 'revealed' through the Tao in the same way as our Western concepts of subjectivity/objectivity are 'revealed' through the Quality event. Of course I can be wrong /completely misunderstand. In this way ZMM is about the (re)discovery of Quality. Lila is about Quality (Pirsig calls it Dynamic Quality. [Unfortunate, I think, but done to make the contrast with Static Quality]) and Static Quality. So Quality becomes DQ/SQ...unpatterned/patterned. Static Quality is ,once again,divided (and again unfortunate IMHO) into subjective and objective (SP's) (Pisig's SODV paper). I equate your Yin/Yang with MoQ's subject/object (I'll probably bore you but, once again I think that 'subject/object' are so SOM loaded that I'd rather see them disappear...I prefer the 'stable' dynamism of Tao's Yin/Yang. So, when you say 'Lila is about Yin and Yang' I'd say:No it's about Tao and Yin/Yang. In MoQ: DQ (Tao) / SQ (Yin/Yang). Unless you equate either Yin or Yang directly with the Tao?? Otherwise it does not make much sense to me.If you do I would disagree but ,as said, would then have to immerse myself in Taoism and find out more about the Y/Y conceptualisations. Plus, (Ron, I appreciate your 'thinking along' with us on this), DQ should remain undefined. Not, Krimel, because it is so 'sacred' but because it is so simple. Any definition will make it complicated and provide countless posts loaded with academic exegesis ending in ... . This is why I am not happy with Pirsig giving it (Q) an adjective because it gives the impression that 'it' is capable of doing something, that it is some kind of concept or force. It isn't! Pirig only used these terms to make his points clear. DQ simply is the continually changing flux of immediate reality. I may be off track here a bit but it is SOM's 'mind' wanting to do the defining, the distinguishing, the dividing. My understanding of the MoQ is that is is opposed to these processes. In this sense we have the same problem as the Quantum level has thrown up: we need to re-define our understandings within a different framework to make better sense of reality. The MoQ is a start in this direction. [Krimel] to Joe: There seems to be a math epidemic. I suspect that your equations might mesh with Andre's somehow but I don't see how attaching numbers supports the idea of an undefined DQ. Quality is undefined. DQ is change. Andre, sorry Joe, but I also fail to follow your equations and Krimel here we may have a bit of the misunderstanding when you equate DQ with change. It is not. It is the continually changing flux of immediate experience...unpatterned, undefined. IMHO. Andre 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/
