For Ron 24 Nov. :
Bodvar before: > > Then existence's fundamental divide is "Non-conceptual/conceptual" not > > DQ/SQ, or are these identical? Pirsig seems to think so from his > > "Quality/MOQ" super-metaphysics that overrides the MOQ. And further > > everything is "intellectual" - must be if both SOM and MOQ are > > intellectual patterns. All container logic - and logic generally - is > > jettisoned. Thanks but no thanks, I'm no "mystic". Ron: > What you refuse to admit is that "logic" is a necessity of SOM. One > that is left behind with the relegation of SOM to it's "S/O" status. Do you mean that the so-called "logical gates" that all computation is built on belong to SOM? If so, you are wrong Logic is another aspect of Quality (like Beauty) that could have given rise to a non-S/O metaphysics. > There is no MoQ "logic" for the Quality level is out of intellect, > right? thats what is supposed to make your SOL so practicle right? > subject- object logic...... Sure there is a MOQ logic. When premises change, logic (intelligence) lends its services to the new premise provider (top level). For people of the social era it was pure logic that existence was god-run. Then the Geek thinkers worked out new premises and intelligence found it logical that there were "objective explanations" for the old god- explanation. > ..... But SOL has a inherent flaw one MoQ tries to resolve by naming > expereince as the cause of subjects and objects. MoQ states that they > both are static they both are conceptual, Can't see the flaw. SOM - the subject/object premises - employed logic successfully for nearly two millenniums, but of late (the empiricists of the seventeenth century is "recent" in this context) it began to spawn paradoxes and as a result Pirsig worked out new premises and logic will follow suit. (in the grand time scale) > Hopefully SOL keeps this in mind that it's a useful concept and not > reality. You too my son Brutus? > The Q understanding is that all understanding is this way and > that term we use, "reality" is contextual and relative to SOM > understanding. We can not say what DQ is, therefore how may it be > split? The MOQ says that DQ is indefinable, what more do you want? But this dynamic continuum may form patterns. You know how space - completely void - still forms electromagnetic waves? The waves are completely void in themselves yet carries the whole spectrum of energy. The ocean/waves is also a useful analogy., the waves consist of water so it is not"split", yet carry patterns. > ...it has no limits or definitions, how may it be divided? It is mystical, > how else could it be? If you adhere to logic and shun the mystic you > are not of the Q-understanding. You say that the mere act of speaking about DQ limits it, how come then that YOUR conceptualizing don't limit it and thus requires a still subtler expression, and so on in an eternal regression? Well, why kick Ron, Marsha and all lesser minds when it's the latter-day Pirsig's "Quality/MOQ" statement that destroys young Pirsig's great insight. He simply didn't know when to stop and went one step too far in an effort to sound infinitely wise 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/
