[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham 

10 June you butted into my debate with the Krimel (most welcome) but 
please do not carry it into the wilderness so i cut it down to my 
obsessive issue. 

[Bodvar] before:
> > Well what did Lao Tsu mean by TAO if not the source
> > from which everything emanates or are "carvings" out of?

Ham:
> That's music to my ears, coming from you, Bo.  I'm especially in tune
> with "the source from which everything emanates."  It's decidedly
> Platonistic.

Nonsense dear Ham. Plato's message was that IDEAS are the TRUE 
(what became objective) part (of the Truth/Appearance dualism  that 
Greek Thought had arrived at with Socrates) while SENSES 
represented mere Appearances. Noting faintly similar to Ideas being 
dynamic and Senses being static.        

Now then if you too will concentrate. We agree on a Dynamic source 
from which everything emanates. Lao Tsu calls it TAO and you may 
call it ESSENCE, but as the MOQ is the focus here let's concentrate 
on QUALITY. The MOQ postulates that static levels have formed 
from/in this dynamic Quality. So the enigma is why Pirsig went and 
said that the MOQ is just the static part of a still greater 
QUALITY/MOQ meta-metaphysics.

>From the "Summary of 2005":
    The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be 
    separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest 
    of the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't change from day 
    to day, although the world it talks about does.  

This is outrageous: The MOQ postulates a DQ as dynamic as dynamic 
comes, why a still greater DQ???? After having written this (Summary) 
and committed this super-metaphysics to "words" one would think a 
still more dynamic variety were required ... OK, I keep repeating 
myself.    

I have tried to press-gang Krimel into engagementhere and if you 
would apply your great intelligence to it, fine. 

Bodvar