Hi joe, You state that DQ participates in the definition of sq. Could you be more specific with what you mean by "participates"? Is this intrusion of DQ one way, or does sq participate in DQ?
This notions of levels being defined through the concepts of higher or lower has always intrigued me. Is a lower level fundamental to the higher level? If so, then the lower level is more inclusive than the higher. For example, the social only deals with groups of people, whereas the organic presents itself in many other things. So, which is in fact is the "higher" level? A better terminology may be "more (or less) Fundamental". In this sense one might say that DQ is more fundamental than sq. However, the way I see it, DQ and sq are two sides of a coin, therefore they have equal standing. I think it may be a good change if we stop applying static relative concepts to MoQ, otherwise we get stuck on some kind of "chain of command" which opens doors to all sorts of misunderstanding of MoQ. Just my opinion, and I welcome any disagreement. Mark On Oct 25, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matt and All, > > DQ/SQ! In a logical environment DQ is different from SQ! SQ is defined and > DQ participates in that definition, malleable while maintaining its > indefinable status. In the environment MOQ, conceptual reality includes > both: How can the undefined be a lower level than the defined when it is > necessary and precedes any definition in being indefinable yet used for > definition of the later level, necessary to the definition? E.g. Intellect > DQ/SQ is a higher level in evolution than emotions DQ only? > > Joe > > > On 10/23/11 3:58 PM, "Matt Kundert" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matt: >> Okay, but what do you do with what I think is a correct perception >> of Pirsig that Pirsig also wants to say that we are never >> disconnected from DQ? You elaborated well the one side of Pirsig >> that suggests that SOM is in an important sense between us and DQ >> (via the glasses analogy), but what do you do with the notion that >> one of Pirsig's first metaphysical moves is to collapse the (SOM) >> distinction between experience and reality, in order to say that we >> are never, actually, out of touch with reality, even if we had thought >> we were (again, via the glasses analogy--reality was always there, >> even if we thought it was blue, and not the better color, green). >> Isn't there a sense in which Pirsig is suggesting that SOM's >> problems are fake, illusions, rice-traps we stumbled into? Or is >> that one of the things you count as a misinterpretation? > > > 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 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
