[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 20 Jun 2010 at 22:56, Dan Glover wrote:

> >Platt:
> > The only way to avoid the  S/O fall out from DQ is to understand (mystically)
> > that there's no division between me and what I perceive, i.e., what I perceive
> > is actually I-perceiving. Otherwise, all perceptions are something I have. Then
> > I'm forced to say that I perceive myself. Now, who is this I that perceives
> > myself? Another self -- a second self? And who has this perception of a second
> > self? A third self? How many selves must I postulate?
> >
> > Yes, you're right to say that it's necessary to fall into SOM in order to
> > define DQ. But, as Pirsig pointed out, "(SOM reasoning) doesn't tell us
> > anything about the essence of the MOQ." (LC, Note 132). Likewise, perceiving DQ
> > doesn't tell us anything about the essence of DQ.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Okay, lets say we can't perceive Dynamic Quality. There are more no
> surprises in life, nothing new under the sun. There is no hope for
> better. There is no sense of awe at the sight of a sunrise, no
> appreciation of art. No music. No poetry. Plenty of philosophy though,
> and two plus two still equals four.
> 
> Now tell me, do you really want to live in that kind of world?

Hi Dan,

Since there's no separation between me and the world, I don't have much choice 
do I? And because the world is Quality I couldn't escape from it if I tried. So 
your hypothetical scenario is just that -- imaginary, based on the S/O 
perspective.  

Regards,
Platt