On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > > Steve: > Some day maybe you'll explain what awful thing I did to you. For some > reason it seems very important for you to disagree with me, but every > time you say as you said again below such things as "The MoQ > represents, for me, Quality/Reality as unpatterned experience and > patterned experience" it is Bo rather than me you are disagreeing > with. For him the MOQ doesn't "represent" anything. It literally is > reality.
Marsha: You've got one sad ego. You are satisfied with the MoQ as a theory. I am satisfied with the MoQ representing insight and experience. I do not know if what Bo says is based on experience or not. For me, Quality IS reality; Quality being unpatterned experience and patterned experience. So maybe the MoQ is both theory and experience. > > > > > >>> >>> 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. > > > Steve: > In this anaology the moon is reality. The MOQ is the finger. Pirsig > says so himself. The MoQ is also Reality equals Quality(Dynamic and static). > >> From the Baggini interview... > "PIRSIG: Yes, the Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should > be separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of > the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't change from day to day, > although the world it talks about does. To use an Oriental metaphor, > it is just another finger pointing toward the moon..." If I remember correctly the Bagginii interview was called a hostile, unsuccessful interview. Steve, my disagreeing with you is nothing personal. Neither is my agreeing with that most difficult Bo. Marsha _______________________________________________________________________ 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/
