[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

DMB and Krimel.

15 June.

Krimel once said to Bo :
> ... 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.
 
dmb says:
> I think Yin and Yang represent all the pairs of opposites, which means
> all our conceptualizations. So I think Yin and Yang are both static.
> The Tao, the whole circle, includes them both and yet it is beyond all
> the pairs of opposites. 

[Krimel]
> Since that is just about exactly what I have said at least 20 times
> over the past five years maybe we are at last on the same page.

[dmb]
> Just like Quality itself, that's why it can't be named. ....

Look. The MOQ says that there is DQ (and dynamic means dynamic, 
but hardly that it cannot be called "dynamic") and SQ. Why must a 
higher QUALITY be invoked that has MOQ as a "fall-out". Isn't this just 
as "static" if naming it is the great sin? The latter-day Pirsig  who 
undermines his own great achievement infuriates me, as do those  
who don't stand up against this nonsense.   

> .....Also, the world as we know it is one analogy upon another, one
> ghost upon another and so whole thing is made up of such divisions. 

Where does the MOQ say  that "the world as we know it" are 
analogies. It says that it is Value. If it was analogies a Metaphysics of  
Analogies (MOA) is required 

> I mean, the analytic knife has to cut somewhere so that even the DQ/sq
> distinction counts as a pair of opposites.

The great metaphysical revolution took place when everything became 
Quality. Thus the DQ/SQ division is not anything like the S/O split 
(mind you: the analytical knife always cuts S/O) but an internal 
arrangement - the static levels are value levels - not like the S and O 
that are worlds apart.       

> ... The MOQ makes that cut as the first move in a larger system but
> that system also says that such intellectual divisions are always
> secondary to the whole circle.

Not so glib young man! It's no intellectual division, but THE QUALITY 
ordering. And this ordering is not secondary to anything. Lest you have 
- like Pirsig - to postulate another "intellectual"  Quality/MOQ division 
that must be countered by a still higher   ..ad infinitum. Come to your 
senses Dave.  


Bodvar