Hi Marsha On 26 Feb. you wrote:
> Subject/Object Metaphysics: reality = subject & objects > Metaphysics of Quality: reality = quality > Why don't YOU get this? YOU did not comment the SOM as a "quality metaphysics" point, how this shows that it doesn't matter what reality is called, it's the divide that counts, besides it's the DQ/SQ - not only the reality=quality axiom - which is the MOQ. Nobody before Pirsig spoke of any "reality" split a particular way, the S/O chasm was self-evident. Likewise the Dynamic/Static will become self-evident in - say - a couple of centuries ;-) Once more, look to the diagram page in ZMM where SOM and MOQ are drawn. The top box says 'reality' for the former and 'quality (reality)' for the latter. The reality=quality is just a parenthesis, it's the subsequent split that sets the two apart. The snag is the illusion of the said top box remaining behind, it's the box itself which is split. I'm puzzled why oneness means so much - "dualism" seems a swear-word - and why so few appreciate the significance of the Dynamic/Static split compared to the S/O one. (Kevin may be the exception) The enormous explanatory power of the MOQ rests with the static levels. IMO 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/
