[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[John Carl]

Bo says:


>
> OK, "it" or "reality" is ever-changing, dynamic, ... plus all expressions
> of "ineffability" known. Lao Tsu called it Tao and Pirsig called it Quality
> and my point is that it is the source of everything we know, NOT that
> there is a still fluxier FLUX that gives rise to the Fux/Everything
> dualism! I know you have great geneal knowledge, but can't we
> philosophize a little for ourselves? You will understand that it is the
> Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics that irks me because it nullifies the
> MOQ.
>


John:

Now most of that makes sense to me.  I just don't see how you see any
fluxier flux in the thinking of others. (appreciated the freudian
misspelling "FUX/Everything" tho)

Although, to be sure, I have had a recently concieved notion of my own, that
your particular problem is predicated upon the fact that all definitions of
DQ are static, and thus wrong.  But I figured that's just a kindergarten
formulation and you're probably way past that.  So it must be something else
bothering you.

If only I could figure it out, my life would be complete.




>
> [Krimel]
> > He said he didn't know what to call it so he called it "The Way" and
> > that you could recognize it through the common relationships that
> > underlie all opposition. Rough and smooth, dark and light.
>
> Yes, no light without dark  ..etc. It's easy to see that these are mutually
> dependent and one  is brought to despair over it, but SOM's S/O is a
> different story. In its adjective form it's also an aggregate, no
> subjective without objective, but it has achieved metaphysical status
> with OBJECTS in one universe and SUBJECTS in another with no
> connection whatsoever between them. And - for instance - subjective
> thoughts are not supposed to move objective bodies, yet they do, and
> physical stuff is not supposed to alter mental states, yet they do, this is
> SOM's monster-paradox. And the MOQ does resolve it, but then Pirsig
> goes and nullifies it all with his "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics.
>
>
Well... isn't the MoQ  Pirsig's static definition of DQ?  A philosophically
valid endeavor if attempted with full awareness that "If the past is any
guide, will always be open to revision and reinterpretation."

But I don't want to get too deep into this issue.  I can't reconcile the top
level being intellect so I'm outta these arguments from the start.

I had hoped to involve you as some neutral umpire into this quandary
> so please concentrate on this single issue.
>

Sounds like Bo pleads for an interpreter.  May your pleading be heeded.

Take care,

John