[Bo]
> 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.
Sure static patterns manifested via dq. No
divide here. We could divide, we may not divide, pick
your tea.
[SA previously]
> > Rocks are an analogy of dq. Wave is part of the
> > ocean. Static is NOT dynamic! It's all quality.
[Bo]
> 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.
Sure, and the way to notice metaphors is the very
idea that sand art can blow in the wind and the once
static patterns disappear. Analogy, Campbells book as
a reference in Pirsig's book. Mythology, analogy,
metaphors, reaching, pointing into this quiet, where
the fog covers the mountain that I know is here.
[Bo]
> 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.
Well, philosophical talk, chat, means something,
but yes, not in the way you thought, thanks.
[Bo]
> See, now you are at it again. You seem to see
> language,
> regardless of content as "intellectual".
Do you hear chipmunks say M-O-Q?
[Bo]
> Chipmunks not intellectual
> because they don't have language. OK you have your
> "maybe" and "I didn't say" safe exits ;-)
When did I say chipmunks are not intellectual. I
just said above I don't hear chipmunks saying M-O-Q.
simple rocks, simple chipmunks, ah... simple SA.
[Bo]
> 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.
Well, I've said my piece, and you like SOL. As
I've said before, I'm not here to dislodge SOL from
you. You've invested in it, as I have invested in
meditation practice. I don't buy your investment, and
I've been able to live without it, so, I'm going to
drink some green tea. Not too awake, and too sleepy -
green tea. Well, anyways...
[Bo]
> IMO you seem stuck in the 4th. level=mind ("In your
> head" is another way of saying "in your mind", no?)
yes
[Bo]
> 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.
What? Not sure what you said here.
[Bo]
> 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.
Hey, as I heard before, whatever floats your
boat. The inference to Buddhist enlightenment in this
is excellent. I'd also point out that no boat is
necessary if you can walk on water. Also, no-water,
no-boat makes it easier too. Innocent, untainted,
always simple.
white snow, dirty water splashes, brown-white snow,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
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/
