Hi Bo I have a question. If we see the 4th level as about the emergence of the S/O divide, how do we see the social level? Is the social level about human common life before the S/O divide, so that it is about religion and myth and social authority prior to the emergence of S/O divide dependent forms such as individuals, intellectuals, etc?
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Re-inventing the wheel. > 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/ > 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/
