Hi All,
> Bo said: > I use to say that Quality comprises all, but I don't really > see the revolution of the Quality=Reality axiom. SOM hasn't anything > which is S/O split, it simply postulates one subjective and one > objective realm. Thus MOQ simply postulates one dynamic and one > static realm. Can you, Steve, point to any practical difference > between Dynamic Quality and Dynamic Reality? > Steve: I don't understand what you are getting at for most of the above, but, nope. I don't see a practical difference between Dynamic Quality and Dynamic Reality. This is self-evident if Reality = Quality. BO said: > It is the pesky Quality on top (in the MOQ diagram) - then > dynamic/static split, which is the source of all trouble. Dynamic > Quality (or Dynamic Reality) has all the qualities (adjectives) he > heaps on it, however it has spawned the known static layers that are > definable, knowable ..etc. I just can't fathom the wisdom behind > making Quality something else than the DQ of the MOQ as if words is > the great Satan *). Another fallacy is using "metaphysics" in the > Aristotelian (dialectical) sense after he himself realized that there is > no universe outside an ordered universe. i.e metaphysics in the > Pirsigean sense. > > Steve: It is interesting that you bring up two different senses of the term metaphysics. I just wrote a letter to Pirsig on that exact topic to see if he would offer any clarification. The letter I wrote is posted on my blog here: http://www.atheistichope.com/2010/01/i-recently-sent-this-letter-to-robert-m.html Best, Steve 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/
