Hi Andre 24 Dec. wrote:
I had said: > The MOQ created the Quality Reality just like Phaedrus said the > Newton's Theory created the Gravity Reality. Andre: > I'll start nitpicking Bodvar, if you don't mind. Pick all the nits you want, right now we have the stage to ourselves. > They'll expose my doubts or misgivings about your interpretation of the > MoQ. Look at the above statement carefully...'just like Phaedrus said > the Newton's Theory created the Gravity Reality'...has the MoQ created > the Quality Reality. That's right!! OK, that's it, SOM (intellect in retrospect) immediately transformed this into an objective gravity having been from eternity that the subject Newton discovered. But Phaedrus' point is that there are the dynamic data that can fit ANY interpretations, remember Phaedrus' Law about an unending numbers of hypotheses to fit any phenomena. > The MoQ THEORY created the Quality Reality! It is the highest > intellectual quality statement ever presented to the world. It can be > tested and repeated over and over again and each time MoQ's explanatory > power will show the same results. We agree unto tears only that the SOM-MOQ transition is infinitely grander than the Classic - Newton Physics one, I hardly have words for its magnitude and the intellectual level is NOT SOM's mind- intellect and the MOQ cannot fit into a subset of itself. I cannot "forgive" the latter-day Pirsig for all his trite and SOMish utterances that - perhaps can make the MOQ edible for academia - but removes its revolutionary power. > And what the gravity theory has done for 'the world' the Quality theory > will do for 'the world' perhaps 100, if not more, times better. Yes, but the MOQ ought not repeat SOM in the form of the MOQ as an intellectual (=subjective) theory about a Quality Reality (=objective) It must maintain its overarching DQ/SQ view even regarding itself - not least regarding itself.. Bodvar before: > I maintain that Pirsig backed down from Phaedrus radical assertion and > presented the MOQ as a mere intellectual (in a SOM sense) idea-pattern > that won't alter the REAL world. Andre: > What is the REAL world? For me, the REAL world is the world as > described,represented and experienced through the MoQ. At these outer fringes of our wits it's very easy to make wrong steps and say the wrong words. The "real world" is intellect's objective world, but its subjective world is uprooted as well by the MOQ. Bodvar before: > This is the "silly" Pirsig who, after having stated the true "no one > living in an ordered universe can avoid metaphysics", lapes back into > the arch-somish, Aristotelian, notion of metaphysics as a subjective > theory ABOUT an objective reality. Andre: > I read this differently Bodvar. Pirsig 'did it anyway' because of his > reluctance to define Quality (the ineffable) but did it because you > have to come up with something better rather than just criticising > (SOM). Pirsig's Quality=Reality "obsession" made any definition (ordering) among them the MOQ a desecration and this I regard as his most confusing move. There is no DQ without SQ. It may be compared to pending cosmetology that speaks of a "singularity" before the Big Bang and I see Pirsigs QUALITY independent of the MOQ a variety of this notion. > I cannot 'see' the 'lapse back' and certainly not the subjective over > objective. A thought just occurred to me: the chautauqua leading to the > Quality insight was ON the motorbike, (inorganic PoV's) the MoQ, the > development of Quality into the DQ/SQ was done INSIDE the > boat.(inorganic PoV's). Don't know what this means yet. Neither do I ;-) Bodvar before: > To start the creation of a S/O-less reality this way is self defeating > and hence MOQ's problems. Andre: > Again, I fail to 'see' this self-defeating angle. As above, the notion of a "singularity"-like disembodied Quality before its inorganic level (levels = DQ/SQ = MOQ) and this as the important part, undermines the all-important MOQ. Bodvar before: > OK, let's say everything is illusion - that realitys building block is > illusion - well then you have a "Metaphysics of Illusion" (MOI). Andre: > >From a dynamic point of view there are no subjects and no objects. > There is no 'static' Quality. All is Dynamic. And, as far as I > understand the Zen circle,the return to the static is made 'complete > by perceiving Dynamic Quality via static quality patterns. Or, to turn > this around: experiencing static quality patterns as manifestations of > Dynamic Quality. This is what I meant. (Does Lila have quality?) Buddhism is the Oriental Q-like stage reached after their intellectual level (the Upanishads) had been transcended, but because their intellect had't cement into a SOM, their Q stage did not develop into a proper MOQ, all is woolly and half-baked. And believing this as exceeding the MOQ is silly. The MOQ turns circles around everything.. Bodvar before: > IMO it's the Dynamic/Static split - instead of the S/O - which is the > stroke of genius. Andre: > Total agreement here. Glad to hear that and your impatience with Ron's is also a good sign Where do you live right now? 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/
