On Wednesday 27 May 2009 10:44 AM Ron Writes to Bo: > Bo: > This pertains to Pirsig's (silly) "Quality as Dynamic and the MOQ as > static". The "Quality=Reality" postulate is part and parcel of the MOQ, > because it does not mean a thing without the static counterpoint. To > speak of a Quality independent of the MOQ is both impossible and > counterproductive, > > Ron: > I think I see why you have trouble with this Bo, when > you stated that dynamic quality is correlative to it's > static counterpoint, you are on the money and that > is what is trying to be stated. Dynamic and Static > are words for experience, these words are Quality > too but are defined as static because they have > universal meaning and are symbolic of expereince > they are describing. > MoQ then is Quality but it is defined as static from the standpoint > of the universal understanding of concepts, it is dynamic in the > particular experience. > > enough! Hi Ron, Bo and All,
Imho you nailed it, Ron, it stating the dual role that MoQ has. Some time ago a question was asked about the proposition DQ/SQ MOQ, which characterizations were undefined? I substituted EVOLUTION for MOQ and decided that there were two undefined elements in the statement DQ and MOQ. My take on it is that EVOLUTION is undefined if the level is not conceptualized. The reason I say that is so many of my actions are mechanical, i.e. taken directly from a previously conceptualized place in social evolution instead of where it rightly belongs. I am not conscious of what I am doing. DQ is undefined from the standpoint of metaphysics, while MOQ is neutral from a conceptualization of evolution and therefore undefined. In this case evolution or order in existence requires a conception of the order in existence to remove evolution from remaining undefined, a step I unfortunately leave out. The inorganic is in the organic, is in the social, is in the intellectual unless you are describing a disembodied experience that may require its own metaphysical analysis like analogies and metaphors. Imho The three elements active DQ, passive SQ, neutral MOQ are necessary to describe a manifestation. They are interchangeable 123, 231, 321, in a format describing the manifestation depending on which role the concept emphasizes. Most often evolution is left undefined. Joe On 5/27/09 10:44 AM, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote: > Bo: > This pertains to Pirsig's (silly) "Quality as Dynamic and the MOQ as > static". The "Quality=Reality" postulate is part and parcel of the MOQ, > because it does not mean a thing without the static counterpoint. To > speak of a Quality independent of the MOQ is both impossible and > counterproductive, > > Ron: > I think I see why you have trouble with this Bo, when > you stated that dynamic quality is correlative to it's > static counterpoint, you are on the money and that > is what is trying to be stated. Dynamic and Static > are words for experience, these words are Quality > too but are defined as static because they have > universal meaning and are symbolic of expereince > they are describing. > MoQ then is Quality but it is defined as static from the standpoint > of the universal understanding of concepts, it is dynamic in the > particular experience. > > enough! > > > > 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/ 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/
