[MD] Metaphysics a map or reality itself?.

[Matt]

Bo, this should be responded to by someone who knows more about the MoQ than
me (or Marsha, for that matter).

On Nov 30, 2007 11:41 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:

>
> Bo,
>
> No need to get frustrated, I, for one, haven't asked you, or anyone,
> to save me.  Don't think the others have made that request of you
> either.   Are you failing to do something?   What might that
> be?   What might that be?  What might that be?
>
> Marsha
>
>
> At 12:04 PM 11/30/2007, you wrote:
> >Hi Marsha
> >
> >On 30 Nov. you wrote:
> >
> > > It's a beautifully written post!
> >
> >Thanks, but it obviously didn't make a dent. OK, who is here to
> >change views?
> >
> > >  From my heart, or whatever,,, to force the MOQ
> > > out of the Intellectual Level and into a level of
> > > its own would be to put the unknown ((DQ
> > > (Quality) into a system.  Within a system it
> > > would be at the mercy of every form of butchery.
> >
> >First about forcing the MOQ out of the intellectual level. It is
> >already beyond it - has never been there - if you subscribe to
> >logic. The 4th. level is a  sub-system of the MOQ (a lesser
> >container) and can't contain be whole MOQ (container)
> >
> >     This problem of trying to describe value in terms of
> >     substance has been the problem of a smaller container
> >     trying to contain a larger one.  Value is not a subspecies
> >     of substance.  Substance is a subspecies of value. When
> >     you reverse the containment process and define
> >     substance in terms of value the mystery disappears:
> >     substance is a "stable pattern of inorganic values."  The
> >     problem then disappears.  (digital LILA p 25)
> >
> >Why did Pirsig so grossly violate his own words by postulating the
> >MOQ as an intellectual pattern? My guess is either he just forgot
> >or was in SOM-land where intellect is a mental "container" and
> >the MOQ a mental construe and not subject to spatial
> >requirements. That most of you people haven't moved an iota out
> >of SOM is plain, but the creator of the MOQ? The above about
> >value not substance ...etc ought to rule that out. I'm just lost.
> >
> >Next about the MOQ a level unto itself. As tried conveyed many
> >times it is not a level inside the static hierarchy, but merely the
> >plane where one must be to bring the MOQ to bear. The MOQ
> >itself.  That this also "contains" the dynamic part goes without
> >saying, but I can't see that this violates its dynamism. The MOQ
> >says noting about it except that is is dynamic. This keeps it free
> >from "butchery" and can't be any "worse" than Pirsig saying that it
> >is dynamic. It's not sophistry, but he has already said something
> >about it.
> >
> >Pirsig obviously wanted to convey the "taboo" of the DQ so badly
> >that he ended up in "butchering" the MOQ. I remember a diagram
> >of the MOQ (concentric rings) where the paper itself was DQ,
> >that's OK, but then he added  ...but stretches beyond the paper to
> >the end of the world. This sounds impressive but is impossible, in
> >drawing diagrams the paper is "it all" and when speaking/writing
> >language is "it all", to give the impression that one can transcend
> >these media is an illusion. The MOQ is the "diagram" and
> >postulating DQ beyond it butchers it. OK, RMP could possibly not
> >anticipate all possible objections and finer point and you (all)
> >should note his final words in the Paul Turner letter words about
> >his advice not being a Papal Bull, perhaps just bull ...-
> >
> >Bo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >Archives:
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>



-- 
"The only thing that separates us from the animals is...well, the truth is
nothing separates us from the animals."