Mary, Platt, All. [dmb had said] > > > I mean, the analytic knife has to cut somewhere so that even the > > > DQ/sq distinction counts as a pair of opposites.
[Bo said] > > The great metaphysical revolution took place when everything became > > Quality. Thus the DQ/SQ division is not anything like the S/O split > > (mind you: the analytical knife always cuts S/O) but an internal > > arrangement - the static levels are value levels - not like the S > > and O that are worlds apart. [Platt said] > > If I understand correctly, you're saying that dualistic thinking > > based on divisions and "cuts" is SOM. The MOQ revolution is the > > transcendence of dualistic thinking by value understanding, not > > another SOM (intellectual) theory. At least "the knife" that P. speaks of in ZAMM was cutting S/O-ishly, i.e. intellectually, while intelligence in MOQ's service will cut DQ/SQ- ishly. It may be dualistic, but without SOM's bleak and paradox- inducing consequences. > > In other words, the MOQ perspective reveals a world not of observers > > and observed as seen from the dualistic viewpoint, but a world of > > values.. Exactly. > > In the value world, distinctions are made on a vertical/horizontal > > axis whereby the vertical axis is the evolutionary value hierarchy > > and the horizontal axis is a high-low value spectrum. In addition, > > there's a creative force of dynamic value. Sounds good. Regarding the vertical (diagram) I have maintained it regarding the MOQ. No "Reality=Quality" box that splits into DQ and SQ, merely "DQ " on top and "SQ" (connected with a line) under it, the latter may be internally and horizontally partitioned. > > In this way, the MOQ releases us from an illusory dualistic reality > > to a value- experience reality where one does not automatically see > > and say, "That's a small dog, or a brown and white dog, or a mixed > > breed dog," but "That's a good dog," or better yet, simply "Ah, so." Well, when on "the high metaphysical ground" this is may be so, but when back in the static realm - with intellect our base camp - we may speak/think like we used to, but the Q-knowledge remains. > > Am I on target? [Mary Replies] > I think you are, Platt. The so-called Dq/Sq split is not really a > split for us at all since we cannot perceive DQ. In the instant we do > it has already become SQ, so there is no perceived split and no choice > has been made. It just is. The analytical knife comes into play > after the SQ has been perceived, at which point Pirsig is saying that > the S/O split we choose to make is just that - a division we have > chosen. He tries to persuade us that there is another choice - > perception as patterns of value. Even if DQ is ephemeral the DQ/SQ is the matrix when "on the high ground", when back on the plains however our analysis may well be intellectual (S/O-ish) but no longer oppressed by SOM's metaphysical implications. Hope we - "the marvelous few" - agree here ;-) > The S/O split devalues Quality, placing recognition of Quality as a > lower form of perception than the recognition of the Subjects and > Objects as entities in and of themselves. Right SOM places qualities within the subjective realm and as such of secondary, dubious existence. Objectivity is its one sure criterion. > Pirsig points out that this is wrong, and has lead to our fundamental > confusion on the whole subject. When what is Quality is demoted to a > subjective attribute then morals are relative, debatable, and no > consistent 'opinion' can be hoped for. When morals and value are > demoted to the status of attribute, then the invention of the > thermonuclear bomb had only 'relative' moral implications. There was > never a good reason not to do it. If all the world is subjects and > objects, then the discovery of any new 'object' is always "the good" > since we live in a world where nothing has higher status than subjects > contemplating objects. That's all there is. It is only after the fact > that we could debate the moral value of doing science in that > direction, and this debate was weak from the start since it could only > deal with a subjective, relative morality, not a universal one. Wow! Quite "chautauqua" ;-) Bodvar 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
