Mary to Andre:
You post is most puzzling. You seem to disagree with me in some way, but
without further information I cannot discern what way. I would like to know
what is "very, very clear" to you that is not in agreement with what I said?
It must be something important, because you sound angry about it.
Andre:
Hello Mary,sorry my post was puzzling for you. I admit I was very tired...(it
had been a long day and I should have been aware of this gumption trap).
You are talking about being trapped in a subject-object dichotomy. The very
basis of the MOQ is to challenge this idea. Going back to James, Phaedrus
argues that values are the basic empirical reality and not subjects and
objects. Values are the essence of experience, values are more empirical than
subjects and objects. You seem to reject this basic MOQ premise and appear to
accept as axiomatic, as universally true something to which you have been
conditioned to believe but, as Phaedrus argues,it is an artificial
interpretation. It has never been reality itself.
OK, so I am a fundamentalist. I can hear Phaedrus sreaming from the behind the
glass door.
Mary:
Perhaps you would like to begin by telling me what the MoQ's "basic fundamental
premise" is as
you see it. That would be a productive start.
Andre:
I just did.
Mary:
Static patterns of value represent Dynamic Quality.
Andre:
Here we go again.
[Mary Replies]
Are you always this rude or have I said something to personally offend you?
Andre:
I admit I can be very rude sometimes and no, you have not offended me, it was
my grumpy tired little self. First you say that you are stuck in a
subject-object dichotomy and here you say that static patterns represent DQ.
Static patterns of experience are 'abstracted' from the undifferentiated,
aesthetic continuum'. It sounds strange to say that they represent that from
which they are abstracted. I tend to think that DQ cannot be represented in any
way. Static representations can 'point to', can 'reveal'. But I may be way off
line here so stand corrected.
Mary:
The world as we know it is composed of nothing but static patterns of
value.
Andre:
Here we go again.
[Mary Replies]
If it was something I said, then I apologize - as you should too.
Andre:
No and yes, again as above Mary, how can you say this whilst maintaining that
you are stuck in a S/O dichotomy? The first slice of the MOQ is DQ/SQ yet you
maintain that all thinking experience (at the intellectual level is S/O. This
is undermining the MOQ's basic premise.
Ok, I apologize again.
Mary:
Truth is a SOL static pattern of value.I take it you disagree with my statement?
Andre:
Truth is a high quality static intellectual PoV and a species of the Good. A
SOL interpretation would either 'objectify it so that it becomes immutable or
it would 'subjectify' it so that it simply becomes one's personal opinion. I
tend to see truth more as an event that 'happens' and, as James argues, you can
ride on into the future.
Mary, in response to time:
Come again? "Turn this logic around" to what?
Andre:
I have seen that you responded to this in a later post. Just to be clear:
'The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as the
ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is probably 'change'. The
second one may be 'before and after'. From this sense of 'before and after'
emerge more complex concepts of time'. ( Anthony's PhD, p 166)
Mary:
The implication seems to be that the East is incapable of SOL.
Andre:
This is Bodvar's implied assertion because of his equation of the SOL with the
intellectual level. Any culture not dominated by SOL is still at the 'social'
level of experience...so the argument goes.
The SOL, as Mr. Pirsig has pointed out, undermines the essence of the MOQ. The
SOL also denies the ability at the intellectual level of experience to
experience in non-S/O ways.
Music comes to mind, abstract art, the MOQ, Yin-Yang, the Form and Formless.
Sure, intellect slices and divides but it does not do so exclusively in
subjects and objects. This is a dominant Western pattern...not the whole lot.
Mary:
Both East and West employ subject-object logic though it seems that you are the
one who has a problem admitting that.
Andre:
Are Yin- Yang subjects or objects? Big self-small self? There are other ones.
They do employ logic, but what makes you think it is S/O logic? Is logic
'owned' by S/O or is it an intellectual pattern used to investigate something?
Mary:
Yes. What "drives the whole thing" is DQ. SQ is a fallout of DQ. SQ is
not reality, DQ is. Would you care to explain how "SOM does not recognize
this", because SOM actually does recognize this - in the form of the MoQ.
Andre:
So the MOQ is a species of SOM? The MOQ opposes SOM because it does not
recognize Quality, the fruits of direct experience. And I say so because Mr.
Pirsig showed so and I remain faithful to his interpretation because it happens
to agree with my experience as well.
Yep, this affirms my fundamentalist tendencies once again. Sorry about that.
And now I am getting tired again and I do not want to be grumpy with you.
Mary:
ma chere amour
Andre:
Ni shi hen ka ai.
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
