[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi David M (Mike, DMB, Dan and Marsha mentioned)

While trying to figure out what your input for me was about this 
caught my interest. Let me add my opinion.

On 30 Dec. you wrote to Mike;

> Yes language allows us to isolate and recognise
> SQ or objects in our experience, but via habit
> and fetish it also blinds us to the richer SQ/DQ
> mix of our experience, but we can move on and
> re-think our experience as in the move from SOM
> to MOQ as an example. Language has a dual
> covering/uncovering effect as Heidegger pointed out.
 
after Mike (on 18 Dec.) had written (to Ian)

> > Thinking about it, I think it was specifically your "to name it is
> > to kill it" that made me bristle. If you'd said "to define it is to
> > kill it", then fine. But to name something is to give it life, not
> > to kill it. Yes, defining Quality would kill it. But imagine: what
> > kind of a life would Quality have if Pirsig had never named it? It
> > would just be a vague notion held by Pirsig and nobody else
> > (although I'm not sure if it could even be notion...can you have a
> > notion of something that isn't signified? this twists me up just
> > thinking about it). You might say that it would still have life
> > because it has so many other names: the Tao, the One etc. But this
> > only shows how something needs to have a name.

> > By writing about it, Pirsig breathed life into Quality. Language is
> > our friend, not something to be suspicious of.

Thanks to Mike there is still hope. What I can't (under)stand is the 
newfangled mysticism that spreads like a virus - first DMB and 
now Ian and Dan, maybe Marsha  -  when argument and logic 
fails they revert to the nonsense about things better treated by 
silence or "Eastern wisdom". 

Existence (my favourite expression to avoid the somish notion 
that evolution takes place within our minds) has reached the 4th 
level and it is from its premises things are seen and from where 
the Quality step is made. Again Thanks Mike!

NB! I must for the nth time point out that the 4th level is the S/O 
divide, but my contemptous "somish" means the attitude that the 
fourth S/O "level" is all there is! No Quality Reality beyond.         

For David M:.   

Language - treated in a somish sense - is a black hole. It's plain 
that "everything is language" or "just hot air", as plain as the the 
notion that "everything takes place in our minds", but this was 
what put Phaedrus on the the Quality Quest and what the MOQ is 
a liberation from. Thus it jars my Q nerve when you say that 
language "allows us to isolate ...etc". This is the said somish 
notion that the Q-evolution is a linguistic, or mindish thing.

Maybe you make amends for this about the "blinds us to the 
richer DQ/SQ mix ...etc" but I smell the dreaded mysticism here 
;-) After the transition from SOM's S/O to MOQ's DQ/SQ is made 
everything is seen according to the latter. Language becomes a 
social pattern that - while serving social purpose - had no 
"covering/uncovering" effect. It was only at the 4th level that this 
arose because the 4th level does nothing but split experience into 
all kinds of dualisms. 

Happy New Year to You All!

Bo