[MD] The Sophists as the Last Philosophical Mystics

[MarshaV]

Greetings Bo,

At 04:20 AM 12/29/2005, you wrote:

>If not ZMM and its presentation of the birth of the Quality
>Metaphysics can be aligned with the later MOQ there is
>something terribly wrong with the whole thing.

A direct alignment does not seems likely for a creative thinker over time.


>Well, what of this to Paul Turner (sep 2003):
>
>     "Perhaps you can pass all this along to the Lila Squad
>     with the caveat that this is not a Papal Bull, as some
>     would have it, or just plain bull, as others will see it, but
>     merely another opinion on the subject that it is hoped will
>     help."
>
>I admire Pirsig for saying this. We are supposed to think for
>ourselves and not rely on "Papal Bulls" from above.
>
>About "diagrams". I don't know what kind Pirsig speaks about
>here, but what I said about the box type stands up for scrutiny.
>There is however another type and I have one made by Pirsig
>where the paper truly represents DQ. The static levels are
>depicted as concentric rings, inorganic the innermost and
>intellectual the outermost, but on this paper the SOM can't be
>drawn however big the sheet.
>
>Back to the boxes again. To draw a box representing "DC", and
>then go on to say that the paper represents DQ may sound
>impressive, unassailable and immensely subtle, but is plain
>impossible. One consequence is that the SOM (drawn on paper)
>is really  a  "moq" (DQ divided into S/O) while it is a metaphysics
>where Quality belongs in the subjective compartment.

It doesn't sound impossible to me.  I have settled on the analogy 
that DQ represents everything that is and everything that 
isn't.  That means DQ can represent what is inside the box, and 
everything outside of the box.

Have you studied any Eastern Philosophy?  Your objections seem so 
Western oriented?  Your objections are so insistent?  Why I find the 
MOQ so exciting is that includes the wisdom of the East and the 
wisdom of the West.

Marsha