On Jan 13, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > Marsha: >> I can only believe that in spite of the problems, when RMP goes >> on to create a metaphysics he trying to define reality to the best >> of his explanatory ability and is not writing a fairy tale. So I agree >> with Bo, RMP, in the MoQ, is describing reality. > > Steve: > You've missed the point. In saying this above you are agreeing with me > and disagreeing with Bo. For him the MOQ is not a description of > reality, it literally IS reality.
Marsha: I disagree with you. I see it, through experience, as Bo sees it. > > Marsha: >> I think the MoQ represents reality to be Quality(Dynamic & static). >> That's more than just a general branch of philosophy. That's a specific >> view. It's up to you to verify his insights through experience. > > Steve: > I'm saying that this specific DQ/SQ representation of reality known as > the MOQ is intended as part of a broader philosophical tradition of > trying to represent reality through answering traditionally asked > questions about reality known as metaphysics. That's why Pirsig uses > this term and explains what he means by metaphysics before explaining > the specifics of his metaphysics. Marsha: If you want to look at the MoQ relative to the broader and general philosophical tradition, do so. The MoQ represents, for me, Quality/ Reality as unpatterned experience and patterned experience, and it correlates with my experience. You stick with the finger, I'm shooting for the moon. _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
