Andre, Andre previously:
Maybe you need to explain this once more Bodvar but to suggest a > static part 'belonging' to Quality (i.e. SQ) is already a > transgression of the ineffable. > Not one moment is an exact same copy of the 'previous' moment. > It is only convenient to pretend it is. In other words, it is a high > quality intellectual PoV. > imho I apologize for butting in, but quality is the sum of both DQ/SQ. As Pirsig himself highlighted that when you make the first cut, Quality itself is prey to distortion. Pirsig holy grail was to understand quality better than SOM, hence MOQ. The beauty of MOQ is that it divides quality in a capacity with the minimum distortion. We have the for static levels representing an evolutionary pattern of values. Each distinct by it own nature and propelled by DQ. When we look at an intellectual pattern as a whole that encompasses both DQ/SQ, we note that it is both dynamic and static, hence I believe your comment, "Not one moment is an exact same copy of the 'previous' moment." The diversity of patterns over time is one of the characteristics of DQ. But to understand intellect, and cut the SOM tethers we need to separate it from DQ, and see what we have. When we do this we see that SOM is naked as a J-Bird, a static pattern that exists separate unto itself. When it cloaks itself in DQ, then it continues the deception itself is greater than a function of a static pattern, such as "mind". > Andre, the stubborn Dutchie living and working in the Middle Land. I realize that middle of the Quality road seems a safe place to be, however the median of the DQ/SQ forces us to drive one side or the other. Respectfully submitted, Mati On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Bodvar to Andre: > But Pirsig wanted to be more Taoist than Laotse and made the error of > declaring the MOQ part of "what can be named". But for Chrissake > the MOQ merely says that DQ is dynamic, and saying this can't be any > "naming". One may be too smart ("A bridge too far"). > > Andre: > 'Pirsig...declaring the MoQ part of 'what can be named' an error? > > Pirsig himself says that it is important to keep all concepts out of > DQ. Even suggesting that Quality is 'dynamic' is a transgression. > Dynamic Quality is not this/not that. > > Bodvar: > I don't know what have gone into you all not seeing > the futility of declaring language to be the "desecrator" of the holy > unity. But this is the William James pollution of the MOQ (that the > divide is Dynamic/Conceptual) that Pirsig adapted in his desperate > longing for an academical "friend". > > Andre: > Maybe you need to explain this once more Bodvar but to suggest a > static part 'belonging' to Quality (i.e. SQ) is already a > transgression of the ineffable. > Not one moment is an exact same copy of the 'previous' moment. > It is only convenient to pretend it is. In other words, it is a high > quality intellectual PoV. > imho > > Andre, the stubborn Dutchie living and working in the Middle Land. > 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/
