Hello everyone On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:44 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bo said to Dan and dmb: > But for Goodness sake The MOQ does say that there is a Dynamic Quality as > dynamic as dynamic comes, so why postulate another still more dynamic one > that the first variety is a "static" fall-out from. > > dmb says: > I don't think anyone has postulated any third thing. There is just static and > dynamic. There are concepts derived from the flux of life. That's it. DQ as a > metaphysical concept and as it is actually lived and felt and experienced > directly. I don't know where you're getting the third thing.
Dan: Yes, Dave is exactly right so far as I can see. Bo, I think your SOL hang-up has warped your sense of the MOQ to the point that it is no longer the MOQ but your own pet metaphysics. > > Bo continued: > > Are there some serious drawbacks from saying that the MOQ describes the > Quality Reality? Or is it - what I strongly suspect - that you see the DQ/SQ > partitioning taking place in the subjective mind of Man and is thus forced to > postulate a Quality independent of Man's mind: an "objective" one? The MOQ is > a break with SOM so why let it return under a thin "dynamic/static" guise? > > > dmb says: > > The other day I learned that the word "mind" was originally only a verb. > People would say, "mind the steps" or "I don't mind if you do". It was never > used as a noun, as a label for a thing. But as the word "soul" was going out > of fashion, around 400 years ago, English speaking people started using > "mind" instead and it became a noun, a thing. Add this to the famous idea > that Descartes invented the subjective mind as a substance, as a mental > substance, as a thing, and you can see how SOM took shape. It's no accident > that physics came into its own around the same time. William James famously > reversed this. He said the mind is not a thing, not a substance. It is a > function, an action, a verb. And it is not metaphysically distinct from the > body or the world in which it functions. > > In other words, rejecting SOM does not mean we also reject any and every > conception of "mind". We don't have to give up thinking or intellect or > anything of the sort. It simply means that we reject the idea that subjects > and objects are all of reality and that they can never quite correspond to > each other. > > Likewise, Quality is not objective and it is not independent of us. It is our > lived experience. In some sense we could even say it is intimately ours. It's > what you know before you can think about it. Same with the concepts that > follow in its wake. You are those intellectual patterns. Our reality is made > of these patterns. Everything in the encyclopedia is made of these patterns. > And one of the things in that encyclopedia is the idea of an objective > reality, which is not a pattern we subscribe to, but it's in there along with > many other ideas. > > The fact that the MOQ has an intellectual level and the fact that Pirsig's > central mission is to expand our forms of rationality both tell us that the > intellect is very, very important and still remains a key factor in the > overall picture of reality despite that fact that the MOQ rejects SOM and the > Cartesian mind as a "ridiculous fiction". > > One of the big problems with talking about your equation (intellectual level > equals SOM) is that you have a weird definition of both terms. It seems you > don't understand what SOM is and you don't understand what intellect is. As a > result, the equation is hopelessly confused. I mean, it would be wrong even > if you were using those terms properly but the added complications make it > almost impossible to untangle. > > And because you've misconceived the key terms, my answer will probably make > no sense to you. In fact, I'm absolutely certain this answer will make no > difference at all. Dan: I'm sorry, Bo, but I've gone back and re-read what I wrote and I don't see a thing about subjects and objects. Honestly, I don't subscribe to your SOL idea and have no interest in discussing it. If you'd like to have a real discussion about the MOQ, then drop your constant harping on SOM and move on, dude. I mean, for Christ's sake, don't you ever get tired of it? As far as I'm concerned, Dave is right on. Get over it, Dan 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
