Hi SA
On 27 Jan. you said:
> Ah, you meant there is an actual diagram. It's
> been some time since I read ZMM and Lila. I looked it
> up. I see the diagram now, and then I read further in
> the chapter about classical quality being all
> manifestations and romantic quality is
> non-manifestations.
Right, and don't you see dynamic/static "hidden" in the
romantic/classic? Also non-manifestations/manifestations and
some other variants. Fluid/frozen and ocean/wave for example.
> Classical quality can be called
> different names such as subjects and objects.
Not different names in an arbitrary sense, but all offshoots of the
S/O root: Mind/matter, abstract/concrete, mental/corporeal,
language/what language is about, analogies/what's analogized,
symbols/what's symbolized and many more.
> I've
> never thrown out S and O, but you could also call
> these manifestations.
No "throwing out" of the S/O divide is required, it's intellect's
value. Regarding Ss - AND- Os as separate entities (see below)
> I'm not stuck on the divide.
> Manifestations is S and O with no divide. Notice
> manifestations is another word used by Pirsig in the
> same exact chapter with the diagrams.
No, but you seem stuck in S and O as manifestation and that was
valid at the ZMM stage, but the MOQ postulates a static level
hierarchy where the "manifestations" have become static
patterns. But thanks for taking the trouble of looking this up.
> Rocks are an analogy of dq. Wave is part of the
> ocean. Static is NOT dynamic! It's all quality.
I can't see the idea of a DQ/Analogy metaphysics when we have
the DQ/SQ one. We all know and accept that the static patterns
are dynamic deep down, that's the very idea.
> I said human beings can CHAT about rocks. You
> could focus on the word beings too if you wanted. Not
> quite sure why your focused on the chatting part when
> I had a full sentence going. Humans only chat about
> rocks as far as I know. Maybe other animals do, I'm
> not sure. That's all I was saying.
When someone says like you did:
> > > Only human beings can chat about ultimate reality on this planet, as
> > > far as I know.
I thought our philosophical talk was more than chat and that you
meant something like: "Things only exist for us" or " in our
language" or something to that effect, but I'm happy that this
meant nothing.
> I assume quality introduced human beings.
That's d... right!!!!
> Well, I don't hear chipmunks chatting about the
> MoQ, but maybe they do. I did say I wasn't quite
> sure.
See, now you are at it again. You seem to see language,
regardless of content as "intellectual". Chipmunks not intellectual
because they don't have language. OK you have your "maybe"
and "I didn't say" safe exits ;-)
> How are objects intellect, all in YOUR head.
> There not all in my head. As to this divide, isn't
> manifestations beyond this divide. Static quality is
> one word covering everything without a divide. Not
> sure why this divide is a must.
Back to your objects AND subjects hang-up. After SOM's
subject/object divide was replaced by the DQ/SQ one the
question occurred: How to incorporate the S/O (SOM minus its
former "M") inside the MOQ. Pirsig's method is somewhat like
yous in that inorganic+biological patterns are OBJECTS and
social+intellectual are SUBJECTS. This doesn't work: Life isn't
objective and a society isn't subjective (plus many more
objections) The only way is the SOL: The 4th static level is the
S/O divide.
IMO you seem stuck in the 4th. level=mind ("In your head" is
another way of saying "in your mind", no?) but because the
mind/matter (along with all S/Os) is gone as REAL, there are no
"objects" that may reside in heads ... and no "heads" meaning
mind.
> Oh, a some ego, too. A little chest pounding
> maybe, I see.
I'm not exempt from social value ;-)
> Yet, I feel your not understanding me. So, we can
> keep chattin' if you want.
Re. non-understanding it's reciprocal, but I'm convinced that we
are "chatting" about the most important issue there is. So I'll not
be the one to give up.
Bo
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
