[SA previously]
> > When you recognize there is no division
> between experience, values, and intellect (static
patterns
> of quality/value) then you avoid all contradictions
> and logical absurdities and just hear the music.
You
> have found a bridge over paradox.
[Platt]
> But there is a division between experience, values
> and intellect. Pirsig made the division himself --
Dynamic/static
> -- so he could write a metaphysics. You'll find no
bridge
> over paradox until step back to direct experience
prior to the
> division intellect requires.
Ok. Maybe we're talking from two different
angles. When I say no division I'm talking about 'all
is quality'. Sure static and dynamic are split, and
the metaphysics aspect of the MOQ is incomplete. I'm
just saying static is quality and dynamic is quality.
The MOQ is complete with static and dynamic.
Yes, a division between experience and intellect,
if your trying to say static is incomplete, I agree.
If your saying quality is only dq, that is incomplete,
too.
If your goal is to directly experience dq, then
so be it. Intellect is quality, too, though.
Intellect is static quality. Division in the MOQ
doesn't separate intellect from quality. Sure
intellect and direct experience are not the same, but
intellect is quality, though static. Since you seem
to want to just directly experience reality, I would
recommend not ridding intellect as quality, and
thinking intellect is not part of reality. Intellect
is part of reality.
A rock is not paradoxical when a rock is distinct
and still left untouched as 'rock is dq'. Thus, the
rock is static and still dq. The rock is quality.
This rock is dq does not point out a subject (an
observer). So, this is intellectual but not subject -
object paradoxical. In other words, quiet rock. How
is quiet rock paradoxical? The observer is quiet in
'rock is dq'. You can't point out the observer. How
about I am dq? No objects, they are quiet. It is
just 'I am dq'. 'I' is this static distinction human
being, but this human being without ego due to dq.
What is human being without ego? Obviously we have an
ego, but an ego undefined, thus, this human being is
not completely known. I am dq. This is not
paradoxical, but still intellectual. At least this is
how I find sq and dq helpful even when discussing
intellect. I don't use S/O to define intellect and
thus, discuss intellect. A tree is brown. Show me an
S and O in this intellectual statement. Though, this
statement is not mind-blowing in its' complexity, life
doesn't need to be made complex.
thanks.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
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/
