Marsha said:
Static patterns of value are overlaid onto Dynamic Quality to interpret
reality. SOM interprets this overlaid reality as "out there". You, dmb, are
misrepresenting what Bo is saying for the sake of winning an argument rather
than understanding. It is not very intellectual to dismiss everything that
doesn't fit your world-view.
dmb says:
I honestly don't see how I was misrepresenting Bo. In fact, I was correcting
his misinterpretation of me. He is saying that my interpretation is SOMist and
so I explained exactly why that's not so. Apparently, this point was as lost on
you and I can predict with the utmost confidence that this point will also be
lost on him. Again. The explanation was taken from Lila but he says exactly the
same thing in ZAMM. Please notice that the analogue, which will later become
static patterns of quality, are the world as we know it, as we conceptualize
it.
"In our highly complex organic state we advanced organisms respond to our
environment with an invention of many marvelous analogues. We invent earth and
heavens, trees, stones and oceans, gods, music, arts, language, philosophy,
engineering, civilization and science. We call these analogues reality. And
they are reality. We mesmerize our children in the name of truth into knowing
that they are reality. We throw anyone who does not accept these analogues into
an insane asylum. But that which causes us to invent the analogues is Quality.
Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create
the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it."Now, to take that
which has caused us to create the world, and include it within the world we
have created, is clearly impossible. That is why Quality cannot be defined. If
we do define it we are defining something less than Quality itself.""I remember
this fragment more vividly than any of the others, pos
sibly because it is the most important of all. When he wrote it he felt
momentary fright and was about to strike out the words "All of it. Every last
bit of it." Madness there. I think he saw it. But he couldn't see any logical
reason to strike these words out and it was too late now for faintheartedness.
He ignored his warning and let the words stand."
>From chapter 28 of ZAMM:
Now it comes! Because Quality is the generator of the mythos. That's it. That's
what he meant when he said, "Quality is the continuing stimulus which causes us
to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it."
Religion isn't invented by man. Men are invented by religion. Men invent
responses to Quality, and among these responses is an understanding of what
they themselves are. You know something and then the Quality stimulus hits and
then you try to define the Quality stimulus, but to define it all you've got to
work with is what you know. So your definition is made up of what you know.
It's an analogue to what you already know. It has to be. It can't be anything
else. And the mythos grows this way. By analogies to what is known before. The
mythos is a building of analogues upon analogues upon analogues. These fill the
collective consciousness of all communicating mankind. Every last bit of it.
The Quality is the track that directs the train. What is out
side the train, to either side...that is the terra incognita of the insane. He
knew that to understand Quality he would have to leave the mythos. That's why
he felt that slippage. He knew something was about to happen.
Don't you see how this goes so neatly with the explanations in Lila? The
relationship between subjects and objects simply is not the same as the
relationship between dynamic reality and static concepts (between DQ and sq).
In the MOQ, subjects and objects are BOTH considered to be static concepts and
neither one of them can be equated with DQ. Both of them are concepts derived
from DQ and both are contrasted with DQ. Bo thinks I am somehow equating DQ
with the objective world and this explains why that's not true. I'd take your
criticisms more seriously if I thought you understood that, but like I said,
this is thee central misconception from which all SOLAQI nonsense flows.
I honestly don't understand what keeps you guys from seeing this.
You don't understand Quality, the central term. You don't understand the DQ/sq
distinction, the first and central distinction. And you don't understand the
four levels of static quality either. And of all the characters to identify
with, your gang picks the psychotic ex-prostitute or the unreliable narrator?
Other than that, you've got the MOQ down pat. I mean, you guys have
misconceptions about everything. And you're snarky and self-righteous about it
to boot! It's outrageously sloppy, low quality readings are completely
incoherent.
Bo is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. He thinks Lila represents
a relapse into SOM because he does not properly understand what it means to
claim there is a discrepancy between concepts and reality. He takes that to be
a barely disguised claim about the discrepancy between an objective reality and
our subjective interpretations of it. He takes it as a SOMist claim. It's not.
It is the claim of a radical empiricist.
Don't you CARE what it really means, what Pirsig and James meant when they said
it? Don't you care what Pirsig's MOQ actually says about that discrepancy?
As far as I'm concerned, Bo's argument has been defeated many times. It's a
dead issue. What's so frustrating is that you guys keep going at it anyway.
Nobody with an understanding of the MOQ has any respect for it but y'all just
keep blabbing anyway and even the most patient and substantive explanations are
treated with derision and contempt.
Oh well, maybe somebody gets something out it. But you guys are absolutely,
pathologically incorrigible.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
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
