Hi Case. I decided to concentrate on the language point, it was my bridge to the Quality Idea and later the MOQ.
On 3 Feb. you said: > I really don't see how having our existence suspended in language > pulls the rug out from objectivity. After all it is through symbolic > manipulation that we discuss reality. It is our way of communicating > about experience to ourselves and others rather than experience > itself. Yes, SOM (reason) has it that language is manipulation of symbols that symbolize "experience itself. That's the simplistic part, a bit more complicated is it when it comes to symbols of symbols - abstractions of abstractions - but even this is usually shrugged at .. so what?. But I could not leave it and the right hand subsection (objective) eventually dissolved and I was left with the insight that "All is Language" or (for your benefit) "language is experience itself". This pulled the rug under objectivity (for me) ... under subjectivity too, under the very subject/object distinction. This is how I interpreted (reading ZMM for the first time) what young Phaedrus experienced. First in his school days when he pursued SOM in the hypotheses/what is hypotesized" form and found that "all is hypotheses". Later when he became obsessed with the quality term and pursued SOM by way of the question if quality was subjective or objective. The first to go was objective quality, he then rejected subjective quality and was left with "All is Quality" and by and by the MOQ. You say that the levels is the messy part of the MOQ. I believe this looks so (to you) because you haven't grasped the initial transition from the subject/object dualism to the dynamic/static one. What I have concluded is that insisting on a Quality outside of the dynamic/static split is what hinders this understanding. Comparing my language epiphany with Pirsig's Quality one and hearing Heather Perella [or SA] insisting on her "Analogies" (which is language in a different guise) and reading (in ZMM) about Henri Poincarè's "Harmony" and Pirsig's feeling of identity with his Quality, it's clear that there are many canditates for the "ALL IS ..." role, but what's common is the DynamicIStatic split and that is the real MOQ. It's better to discuss such things with a skeptic than those who regard all efforts to weed out the inconsistencies as "hurting" Pirsig. IMO Bo PS. It bears some resemblance with Quantum Physics. When it was young the physicists believed that it was some "hidden parameter" that caused its weirdness and when discovered it would re-unite it with reason (nobody knew - or knows - any SOM) Einstein was the last rationalist and formulated his famous thought experiment that would decide once and for all that "God didn't play dice".This experiment became possible in the eighties (by Alan Aspect) but the outcome proved that Quantum reality is the only reality, there is no objective world "out there". And by now physicists have dropped all pretentions of understanding, they just use the Quantum-based equations, they always yield the correct results. That's what the MOQ also does: whatever it is the directed at all SOM paradoxex (platypus) dissolves ....by the SOL interpretation that is, the way orthodox MOQ solves (for instance) the mind/matter enigma is lame. 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/
