On May 2, 2010, at 4:43 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > > The definition of MoQ that I hold most close to my heart because I know it > most intimately is: Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience), > which I formally extend to : MoQ = Reality is Quality(DQ(unpatterned > experience)/static > quality(patterned experience(inorganic,biological,social&Intellectual(SOM)))) > > I stated my view as the MoQ is both an explanation and the > metaphysical assumption that reality = quality. > > Andre: > Quality is the 'ineffable'. The MOQ is a high quality, static, intellectual > explanation of static experience as it is abstracted from pure, immediate > experience. It has placed this experience within an evolutionary framework.
RMP has written that 'Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable". He has also used synonyms for Quality: Value, Reality and Experience. My interpretation is that MoQ is 1.) a designator for RMP's theory that reality is value as represented in ZMM LILA and other writings, and 2.) a designator for the metaphysical assumption that Quality = Reality. Two truths! Even the word 'Quality' is a designator for the that which cannot be expressed by words, the ineffable. > > Marsha: > It was not Bo's arguments that convinced me that the Intellectual Level is > SOM, but my own realization, more from my reading of Buddhist texts and > thinking about it than anything Bo said. > > Andre: > In SOM, pre-intellectual empirical reality of value does not exist. SOM holds > subjects and objects as primary. We are 'subjects' experiencing an > 'objective' world 'out there'. Is that what you are convinced of? When I held the SOM point-of-view, I was convinced that world was composed of subjects and objects. Now I hold a MoQ point-of-view and am convinced the world is composed of unpatterned experience (Dynamic Quality) and patterned experience (static quality or value). > > Marsha: > You didn't seem to care what I wrote. > > Andre: > If I don't care about what you write, why should I bother with this > conversation? Maybe you just want another venue from which to attack Bo's idea. That's how it seemed to me because you wrote so much about him. 'Bo this. Bo that.' > > Marsha: > Force? You, and Ron too, remind me of a man who beats his wife > and later tells her he beats her because he cares so much. I don't > buy your excuse. > > Andre: > You are also capable of some pretty low quality observations. I was applying > force to my own argument Marsha...not to anything or anybody else. I acknowledge I, too, can be quite nasty. The more I think about entanglement, the more I know that is a habit to break. Calling someone a 'fucking salesman' is not using force to promote your ideas. It is simply a ad hominem attack. And calling someone's ideas 'stupid' is a sneaky ad hominem attack. > > Marsha: > You have not been designated Mr. Pirsig's spokesperson, or the MoQ's > gatekeeper, and Mr. Pirsig has said there is no papal bull. Bo has every > right to argue his position until the cows come home. > > Andre: > Absolutely right. And even though Mr.Pirsig has said this of his own words > with regards to the intellectual level that surely doesn't mean that any old > interpretation goes. Mr. Pirsig has stated that Bodvar's (and > Platt's)interpretation 'undermines'the essence of the MOQ. > > And the cows will still be coming home long after you and I and Bodvar have > left. I don't believe Mr. Pirsig's rejection was decisive. If you understand it differently, then our understandings differ. > > Marsha: > I think Mary is quite responsible for her own interpretation. She will think > it > through to her own satisfaction, she's a very intelligent woman. > > Andre: > Totally agree. But very intelligent people are capable of being confused no? And it is equally quite possible that you are confused. > > Marsha: > You should share your opinion as much as you need to, but to think that it > should have > any impact on anyone is strange. I write mostly to try to understand what I > think. Since > I am so introverted it is difficult to share but I benefit by trying to find > good words. > > Andre: > Oh. Okay, since you only talk to yourself to help yourself understand > yourself, why not write your own blog? > > Over and out. I didn't say I only talk to myself, I also enjoy the feedback. Sometimes the feedback is helpful, sometimes it is not. Marsha ___ 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
