Ron
6 Oct. :
Bo before:
> But there can't be two basic understandings (metaphysics)
Ron:
> Why not? because you say so? thats hardly any good enough reason. Lets
> begin with this, exactly WHY can't there be two basic understandings?
I mean for an individual. After I miraculously came to know the MOQ I
can't return to SOM, I can operate on the S/O level - at intellect - but I
can't take its premises metaphysically serious. I can talk about subject
and object, mind and matter, psychic and physical to my heart's
delight, but - as said - metaphysically I'm free of SOM's yoke. Of
course SOM rules the Western world and if I started talking/writing
along its terms around this place no one would understand, but I do
write a lot locally (I'm a poor talker) and use the level matrix without
being too specific.
"What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box that sits
above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this
he also saw a huge number of ways in which Quality can be
divided. Subjects and objects are just one of the ways. The
question was, which way was best?"
A bit on this: While SOM ruled it was not Quality which was S/O-
divided, it wasn't even a "reality" because there was no SOM before
Pirsig pointed to it . We were simply dead sure that there were one
subjective and one objective reality. These Pirsig's deliberations is
after his Quality Insight in ZAMM where Quality's sole fallout were
subjects and objects. And there aren't a huge number ...etc. because
what his insight revealed was Dynamic Quality! Thus "static" was the
only option ...or another variety of it.
Ron:
> Keeping in mind Bo, Quality is individual experience.
>From what I say above it looks like we agree, but when you say it like
that your "individual" sounds like SOM's subject and quality its
subjective experience. My "individual" is the static Quality aggregate
that has been blind to the Q-context, but now can see. Hallelujah! ;-)
> To assume Quality as reality is to make an objective assumption.
> Quality is everchanging, Quality only exists in experience, Quality is
> uncertain. What is known about Quality is always limited illusional and
> never absolute. To understand Quality is to limit, simplify and
> exaggerate . What is limited simplified and exaggerated is static.
Well the MOQ says that the DQ component is dynamic - indefinable -
what more can you ask? Is the mere act of calling Quality DQ a
defilement? If so your reinforcement of it is another worse defilement.
This is the dreaded Quality/MOQ "metaphysics" which requites
another and another "ad infinitum".
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/
