Hi Marsha
30 May.
Bo:
> > Here we go again, it's Quality that has a static aspect!
Marsha:
> This is just a word problem. Yes Quality and DQ are the same, but I
> think static quality is Quality too. All is Quality, what appears as
> patterns is static quality, and all else is called Quality/DQ.
Bo now:
It was SOM that introduced the "word problem" - the distance between
(subjective) words and objective reality. We also seem to agree that
Quality has static "fallouts" .... had you only stuck to it and not (like
Pirsig) started on a greater QUALITY that has DQ/SQ as fallouts.
You may wonder about my obsession with this distinction, but if the
MOQ is just some arbitrary arrangement of Quality it means that all
and sundry world view is a "moq" and Pirsig say as much somewhere,
namely that SOM is a "quality metaphysics" and this is not right. No
one can spot any difference between the ordinary SOM and a quality
one. Except if SOM is made into MOQ's intellectual level, then all
puzzle pieces fall into place, but if so it's no "metaphysics" but part of
the MOQ.
> >There was no-one who said that reality was NOT quality before
> >Pirsig. What ruled was the subject/object metaphysics and because
> >MOQ's mission is to overthrow SOM its dynamic/static schism is what
> >counts.
> Your first sentence is unclear to me. As far as I know, SOM was not
> accepted as the official metaphysics of any era.
In our culture SOM rules (outside our little circle that is) and you are
right, it (SOM) is not recognized as "official metaphysics", rather
regarded as how reality IS assembled from the factory. Once SOM is
seen that way (as a metaphysics) scales fall from people's eyes and is
why Strawson - in his critique of LILA - was so keen on denying any
SOM.
> Reality as a s/o duality in its various forms seems to have been the
> most common point-of-view within the philosophical circles, including
> periods where one was rejected countered by periods when the other was
> rejected. I doubt that common people thought about it at all; I would
> guess that they had been indoctrinated with a 'theological
> determinism'.
Right! SOM has alternated between the subjective and objective
extremes ever since the Greeks started the see-saw with the Sophists'
subjectivism ("Man the measure" of what's true) versus Plato's
objectivity (Truth is independent of Man) No sooner is one accepted as
self-evident before the other starts rising. This is so because they are
interdependent, one presupposes the other.
> Overthrow? How? It is hard enough to overthrow the idea of
> subjects and objects within one's individual brain. The ego portion
> of the self seems to exist because of it.
If the MOQ is to replace SOM and "subsume it (SOM) under its own
system" it means revolution (overthrowing) Yes, the ego, self,
consciousness are all SOM's work and it may be retained as static
intellectual values - for valuable it is - but with the overall MOQ context
in mind.
> BTW, have you ever listened to explanations of Quantum Theory&etc.?
> If it wasn't labeled science, it could only be called mysticism.
Yes, I know, but do you recommend any particular lecture on this issue
(a link)
> > In my opinion DQ is the ocean and the waves the static levels with
> > ripples on top of the waves= static patterns.
> I don't know how to state it in a rational sentence, but to me the
> movement of those waves requires the static and dynamic. As one
> goes deeper into the ocean, the static falls away.
Well, the static may fall away, but where waves are they are ocean
waves, there is no particular depth the OCEAN changes to dynamic
ocean/static ocean.
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/
