[MD] Metaphysics

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar to virtually all of us:

Yes, you bet, metaphysics in the the true MOQ  sense is reality, that's
the very point!

Hello Bodvar and All:
When I read this, something dawned on me but couldn’t give it
expression until I lay, quietly on my electric blanket (it is fucking
freezing here!).
Then it came to me...the passage in ZMM (I think) where Phaedrus has a
conversation with a priest and they are talking about the liturgy, the
most sacred part: when the wine changes into blood, and the bread
changes into the body of Christ. Phaedrus asks along the lines of;
(sorry I do not have a copy of ZMM with me) yes, but this is
symbolically..yeS??. No! says the priest, this is real. At that
moment, the wine and bread change into the actual blood and body of
Jesus Christ!
Christians all over the world actually and factually believe that this
is indeed the case. And, further more, the Bible is of course seen,
not as a book full of stories ( if I may take the liberty, as a book
full of fingers pointing to the moon!!) but as the actual word of God.

Bodvar ‘ forced’ me to think about the MoQ from this perspective (not
as a religion, not as an act of faith) but as a true statement of
Reality...of Quality. The positing of the MoQ in this context gave me
a further glimpse into how Bodvar ‘experiences’ the MoQ. He firmly and
absolutely believes in it...though believing is an inappropriate
expression to use. And, just as the Bible is perceived as containing
the actual words of God ( not symbolically but real...to our Christian
believers), so is the MoQ as a metaphysics, a statement, a programme
perceived by Bodvar to be a statement of Reality... of Quality written
by Phaedrus. Not just any Phaedrus. No! The Phaedrus of ZMM and as on
occasions he appears in LILA.
This is then why Bodvar  treats, for example, the reality/concept, the
abstract/concrete, the reality/language, the Quality/MoQ, dichotomies
with such derision. The Quality reality has ‘absolved’ us from these
because the S/O reality has been ‘overcome’ by a ‘higher’
understanding. The DQ/SQ reality which ‘contains’ everything as moral
patterns of value. How, Bodvar asks, can one pattern of value
(language) 'make' another pattern of value any less real? The social
word 'tree' (as a social PoV) is not the same as the 'tree' as an
inorganic PoV?

As he said to Marsha, does naming DQ detract from its reality?

The bone of contention, of course remains that Bodvar argues that, the
way to contain S/O thinking is to make it static and to make it the
4th level of the MoQ as the only way to overcome its influence and
tentacles. This ‘frees’ DQ from inadvertently being placed in the
service of SOM. It allows the MoQ understanding to ‘reign’ with SOM
being firmly and securely behind (intellect[ual]) lock and key. And
reign one does ‘from above’ and not from the same ‘level’!

Attempting to avoid smart remarks and the like I firmly believe that
this very, very different from a religious thing so comparisons should
not be made .(see the Northrop reference below)

What Bodvar also asked me (or rather, through this moment of
realisation) confronted me with, is to what extent I am committed to
(or want to surrender to) the full implications of the MoQ.(if I
accept that Bodvar does have a real, genuine point). Do I want to
treat it as a stimulating academic subject? Do I want to dabble in it
as a dilettante? To what extent do I accept this Q-reality and to what
extent am I willing to commit myself? And, will I do this full-time or
part-time? Do I want to live the MoQ?

Northrop says somewhere that one does not require a ‘belief’ in the
‘undifferentiated aesthetic continuum’ (Quality). It can be
apprehended immediately and thus verified.

I recognise Quality through simply living/experiencing so there is no
escape and the questions above are not really relevant. Question is,
to what extent am I willing/committed to follow DQ and follow Good?
Or, conversly, do what is (SOM) reasonable and follow S/Q  with a bit
of DQ when it suits me?

Points to ponder but, perhaps for some this was just a boring example
of soliloquise.

For what it is worth.
Andre