Bodvar to Andre: Andre wrote: The 'pesky (Quality(MOQ) 'is your invention Bodvar.If you mean Quality (dynamic) and the MoQ (a description of the presumed DQ/SQ 'interplay') then yes.
Bodvar in reply: Yes, what? If I inform you that Pirsig has said that the Quality he spoke of in ZAMM is identical to MOQ's DQ, would that make some difference? Hello Anthony if you read this, can you offer the said quote again?. Andre: I am sure that the ZMM Quality is the same as LILA's DQ Bodvar. What you still refuse to accept or acknowledge is that the MoQ is different from reality. The MoQ is a set of concepts, a set of ideas, ABOUT reality. Call it a critic's review of a movie about to be released. Is the review the movie? Is reading the review the same experience as watching the movie? Is DQ/SQ the same as the review, watching the movie and you being in the movie? Is DQ the same as the review, watching the movie of you being in the movie or is it something else again? Hence the Quality/MoQ. Pure, direct experience, the 'mystical' one, knows no subjects, no objects, no beliefs, no authority, no reports, no re-views or pre-views. It is 'pure'DQ...without SQ. (the dynamic perspective) Bodvar: Where do you find anything about a "Lila and DQ dance"? I think it a Broersen ad hoc embroidery. There is the DQ/SQ and that's all. Andre: Lila, the Hindu name for the divine dance, the divine play. Just another description of the DQ/SQ 'interplay' Bodvar, that is all. Bodvar: To speak about a Quality/MOQ context is merely reverting to SOM where Quality is the objective reality while the MOQ is something subjective and second- hand. Andre: There is nothing 'objective' about Quality. However, there is something 'subjective' about the MoQ as intellectual PoV AND 'subjective' in the sense that the MoQ understands and uses the term. It is NOT the same as SOM (as you are very well aware, but what you vehemently oppose). I have a hunch that this opposition is very similar to the type of reasoning you and Platt suggested in LC about the MoQ being a SOM document. Mr. Pirsig has pointed out to you both that this is a misrepresentation of the essence of the MoQ. ( off memory these are Annotns. 132 and 133). Bodvar: I claim that the MoQ creates the Quality Reality in the same sense that the Gravity Theory created the Gravity Reality. The MoQ is the DQ/SQ or Direct/Static Experience if you prefer.Get it? Andre: Well, the MoQ doesn't create anything and Pirsig, in LILA, was quick to point out instances where PoV's defied this Gravity Law. By simple observation and reasoning. ( you know, birds flying through the air, landing on the moon and Mars type things). This does not take anything away from its value in terms of its applicability and practical uses through this theory in the same way as the MoQ can be 'applied' as a theory of expanding our understanding of reality through Dq/SQ. The MoQ does not reject existing knowledge derived from SOM. The MoQ allows a different, expanded interpretation of the data. This has huge consequences as you well know. So, to answer your question: No I probably don't. 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
