John to Andre: So "the world" and "conventional reality, then, are composed of static patterns.. SQ, in other words.
Andre: Yep. John: hmmm... so "reality is DQ. Andre: Yep. John: But how does your reality differ from "the world" or "conventional reality". Andre: The one is static and the other is Dynamic. John: Can't we just please stick with one term for "the whole enchilada" and call it reality without all this weird hair splitting? Andre: No, because then you start mixing things up and confusing things where clarity is called for. John: And if you can constrain yourself to one reality at a time, please, tell me then if it's of SQ, or DQ. Andre: It is both John. John: Because you seem to be quoting Pirsig saying its both, and then raggin' on Marsha cuz she does the same. Andre: Yes,it is both, but please remember that we are discussing Pirsig's MOQ, a static intellectual pattern of quality. Mr. Pirsig made it very clear that you cannot build a metaphysics consisting of just one word. He turned to static patterns to explain what he was saying because these are stable. These patterns of quality he used...these patterns of order, preserve his metaphysics. Mr. Pirsig turned to static quality patterns to accomplish this. Marsha's use is, as far as I can tell, from a dynamic point of view. And from this dynamic point of view you can do a few things: you can (1) be silent(he who knows does not speak;he who speaks does not know), you can (2) be wise and hereby assist other contributors to gain an insight in your wisdom regarding MOQ and you can do this consistently and intelligently...not confusing DQ with sq. Or (3) you can use it(DQ) to deny, twist, distort,undermine, evade and curl and wheeze and slide and glide...anything to simply dodge responsibility for sound intellectual discussion about Mr. Pirsig's MOQ. Of course , this is consistent with DQ...it has no holding power...unless you cast it in a static mode. You know I am pointing to(3)Marsha is using. (remember I did ask her a few posts ago if she considered herself a mystic, trying to draw out some mystical understanding...which she denied).And this is also obvious because her retorts(I do not want to call them 'answers' anymore): she 'relativises' everything...everyone else's views are just 'interpretations', just 'subjective' points of view and, by implication, negligible!...nihilism!! John: How does referring back to a confusion help "avoid messiness and confusion?" Andre: I hope I have cleared up some of your confusion...but doubt it. John: B-b-but particles only do what they do because we choose to see them a certain way. That's part of our fundamental problem with SOM, right? Andre: Yep....but I take issue with you if you say that the SOM way of looking at this is 'choose to see them a certain way'. SOM does not choose. SOM argues: this is the way and only way...determinism John. A SOMist does not attribute 'choice' to the behaviour of particles. John: I see sq as completely dependent upon DQ. Andre: You cannot have the one without the other. Hope all is well with you 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
