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: I give you another last chance. The MOQ postulates a DQ/SQ reality, then its DQ is the Quality that has spawned the SQ ..OK? What the heck is the Quality of the "Quality/MOQ" meta- metaphysics? Have someone turned mad? If you just have the same nonsense to offer, don't bother. Andre: Let's bite into this last temptation: from a 'dynamic' perspective DQ, i.e. pure experience is reality. >From a conventional static perspective 'reality' is DQ/SQ. They have both arisen dependently. SQ 'arising' out of DQ. DQ being a 'characteristic' of SQ. This is the conventional differentiated perspective. I was delibrately annoying in my response because you keep on asking for the 'real' Quality.( will the real Quality stand up please?). You ask: What the heck is the Quality of the "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics? Andre: There is no meta-metaphysics. Ths is what you make of it by postulating an objective Quality and a subjective SQ. This is wrong! The Quality/MoQ is DQ/SQ (with SQ being the static idea thereof, the written program/metaphysics/philosophy). You are suggesting that this written document is equivalent to Dynamic Quality i.e. pure experiece. This is silly. And if you regard this as the same nonsense then I am convinced that there is Pirsig's MoQ and your MoQ and never the twain shall meet. 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
