Bo says:
> > OK, "it" or "reality" is ever-changing, dynamic, ... plus all expressions > of "ineffability" known. Lao Tsu called it Tao and Pirsig called it Quality > and my point is that it is the source of everything we know, NOT that > there is a still fluxier FLUX that gives rise to the Fux/Everything > dualism! I know you have great geneal knowledge, but can't we > philosophize a little for ourselves? You will understand that it is the > Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics that irks me because it nullifies the > MOQ. > John: Now most of that makes sense to me. I just don't see how you see any fluxier flux in the thinking of others. (appreciated the freudian misspelling "FUX/Everything" tho) Although, to be sure, I have had a recently concieved notion of my own, that your particular problem is predicated upon the fact that all definitions of DQ are static, and thus wrong. But I figured that's just a kindergarten formulation and you're probably way past that. So it must be something else bothering you. If only I could figure it out, my life would be complete. > > [Krimel] > > He said he didn't know what to call it so he called it "The Way" and > > that you could recognize it through the common relationships that > > underlie all opposition. Rough and smooth, dark and light. > > Yes, no light without dark ..etc. It's easy to see that these are mutually > dependent and one is brought to despair over it, but SOM's S/O is a > different story. In its adjective form it's also an aggregate, no > subjective without objective, but it has achieved metaphysical status > with OBJECTS in one universe and SUBJECTS in another with no > connection whatsoever between them. And - for instance - subjective > thoughts are not supposed to move objective bodies, yet they do, and > physical stuff is not supposed to alter mental states, yet they do, this is > SOM's monster-paradox. And the MOQ does resolve it, but then Pirsig > goes and nullifies it all with his "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics. > > Well... isn't the MoQ Pirsig's static definition of DQ? A philosophically valid endeavor if attempted with full awareness that "If the past is any guide, will always be open to revision and reinterpretation." But I don't want to get too deep into this issue. I can't reconcile the top level being intellect so I'm outta these arguments from the start. I had hoped to involve you as some neutral umpire into this quandary > so please concentrate on this single issue. > Sounds like Bo pleads for an interpreter. May your pleading be heeded. Take care, John 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
