[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Krimel

3 June:

[Bo] before
> and if you again will consider the issue. If Yang/Yin division is
> mandatory - i.e. it couldn't as well  have been Gung/Ho and still been
> Taoism - then DQ/SQ is mandatory, MOQ's DQ is the dynamic part part of
> existence. Get it? 

[Krimel]
> First of all I think DQ and SQ correspond exactly to Yang and Yin. The
> point you seem to miss is that dividing the world is not mandatory. 

I think both dividing and the DQ/SQ division is mandatory (feel free to 
insert Lao Tsu and Yang/Yin). 

Look. Pirsig had the insight that Quality = Reality, but this meant 
nothing so he soon started on a dualism based on Quality. He posits 
Quality at the top of a "box" diagram that splits into Dynamic and 
Static. This leads to the false impression that there remains an 
unscathed Quality atop the DQ/SQ dichotomy, and made the latter-day 
Pirsig (in the Summary of 2005) say that the MOQ is the "static" part of 
a still greater Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics. This is horribly wrong IT 
IS QUALITY WHICH IS DIVIDED!. Must be. To say that reality is 
something is useless. There were no metaphysics that said that reality 
was NOT Quality, it was just SOM that said that qualities were 
subjective.  

I make it no further in the hope that you will understand that the 
constellation of an ineffable something that remains at one side of a 
equation with an arbitrary division on the other side is the return of 
SOM in a new form. Please apply your intelligence on this  ... not your 
intellect for Goodness sake, it just spawns more S/Os ;-)         

Bodvar






















> It is just useful. Making distinctions and creating concepts is what
> sets us apart from other animals but how we do it is entirely up to us. 
 
> [Bo]
> I accept every word, but you said that DQ/SQ corresponds to the 
> Yang/Yin and I agree. There can't be any Tao without the Yang/Yin
> arrangement and no Quality without the DQ/SQ. If the mere act of
> saying so is the sin, how do you avoid language? 
> 
> [Krimel]
> You have this backwards the Tao is the Tao regardless of how we elect
> to describe it. As I said, Lao Tsu does not use the terms. What he
> says is this:
> 
> Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself. 
> Even the finest name is insufficient to define it. 
> Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
> and without a name, it can be known.
> 
> You can avoid language by not speaking but if you want to communicate
> you have to have concepts. You have to divide continuous experience
> into discrete units. How we choose to do that is what we are talking
> about here. This is where Pirsig is wielding his analytical knife to
> reslice Lao Tsu's pie. The task of metaphysics is to decide on the
> most fundamental units of this division. One way to do this would be
> mind/matter another static/dynamic. You could pick good/evil or
> natural/supernatural. Many ancient people chose earth, air, fire and
> water; or the three states of matter and the power that transforms
> them.
> 
> [Bo]
> But for Goodness' sake the MOQ "argues" that DQ is and will remain
> undefined. Again muster your resources and try to come to grips with
> this issue.
> 
> [Krimel]
> Quality is undefined. 
> 
> DQ and SQ are concepts we use to talk about it. They are definitions
> and they are both definable and specifiable. In fact the biggest
> problem I have with the AWGIs is their insistence that DQ is
> "betterness". DQ, change, can be disastrous. In fact disaster is a
> form of DQ. Even the Jews got this point. In Isaiah it is written: "I
> form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil,
> saith the Lord.
> 
> 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/md/archives.html
> 
>