Bodvar to Andre: Andre: > Who is postulating another 'more dynamic' article?
You - or really Pirsig - by the pesky "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics. Andre: It is not 'another...article'. Bodvar: If the DQ of the MOQ isn't the real Quality what is? Andre: Not sure if it is the 'real' Quality but DQ is! Bodvar: Isn't the MOQ supposed to be a "new deal"? Andre: You bet it is. There never was a 'subjective shadow of the real article 'out there'. SOM has been, and still is, a huge commercial con- trick. Bodvar (exasperated at my statement that a static pattern cannot be used to 'capture' DQ: What CAN be used? Isn't intuition or approximation also some static - conscious or unconscious - product? Andre: That is not my understanding of 'intuition'. Intuition is one of these 'mystical' referent terms to explain something you do not understand the workings of after something as been 'revealed' to you. It is 'typcal' SOM stuff. I think that the MoQ would agree if I say that 'intuition' is the same as DQ (as referent term). It is therefore not a static 'product'. You are still not understanding the DQ/SQ relationship properly. Bodvar: If you insist on this approach you are left with a Q variety of the paradox if a falling tree makes a noise with no listener. Is there Quality with no "medium" to convey it? Andre: Here you ask it and again I say it: DQ/SQ. Bodvar: Again, listen you dear fool: From the moment the S/O distinction is (metaphysically) rejected, there is no "objective" Quality that the MOQ is a "subjective" rendering of. Andre: And you listen, you silly old bastard (yeah, don't get personal with me! you have at least 20 years on me!!!-:))) It really is time that you are listening to your own words and reflect on them. And please listen carefully...this is crucial...: You say: I know that Pirsig don't use the S & O terms, but by calling the MOQ "static" and Quality "dynamic" he abuses dynamic and static to mean the same. DQ is dynamic - that's implied in the term, but the MOQ isn't static for saying so. Andre: You equate 'dynamic' with 'objective' and 'static' with 'subjective'. This is not a good way to understand these terms, nor is it a good way to understand to MoQ and reinforces my point above that you do not understand DQ/SQ.( with all respect) Bodvar: Not to distract you from this crucial issue I stop here. Andre: I am glad you stopped presenting this 'crucial' issue ( to remain focussed) and hope that it does not stop here for you. Bodvar: Thanks all the same Andre, you are a true thinker willing to probe the very foundations of the MOQ. Andre: You provided me with a sleepless night Bodvar: what are the foundations of the MoQ? And I dreamt I just floated in emptyness.Soooo dynamically relaxed. Kind regards Andre 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/md/archives.html
