[MD] Knowledge as MOQ's intellect

[skutvik at online.no]

Marsha

15 Dec. you said:
  
>[Bo]
> >It never ocurred to you (Steve obviously not) that Quality as
> >(objective) reality and the MOQ as a (subjective) theory is SOM
> >in a flimsy moqish guise. Until the true MOQ - the DQ/SQ - not
> >the QUALITY/MOQ travesty is realized it will not have a chance.

> I don't see Quality as objective.  To me, Quality is Reality is 
> Experience which is the MOQ and me, and the most important thing is to
> pay attention, to be aware.  I'm not one bit worried about this new
> understanding surviving.  It's time is here and expanding.

Whether you call it "objective" does not matter, any dualisms where 
one part is REAL and the other JUST something is a SOM's offshoot.  
The MOQ on the other hand postulates that the DQ/SQ is reality, 
meaning that the levels are value too, but  is's the Dynamic 
Value/Static Value dichotomy that counts. 

> You have a website.  Could you represent your view of the levels as a
> drawing?  

Yes, but I got help in constructing it and it just contains my "Quality 
Event" essay from 1996 that has the usual block diagram which is the 
very source of all misunderstandings. By now the site is outdated 
(shame on me) I once had a drawing from Pirsig of the MOQ as 
concentric rings, the paper itself represented DQ, but he added that it 
stretched outside the paper to the end of the world. This may sound 
impressive but is the impossible Quality outside the MOQ. When we 
draw diagrams the paper is all and when we use language IT is all.

> This might be very helpful  I hear your frustration, but
> don't get it.  I hear fear too. What will happen if your
> understanding is not accepted?  Are you alone responsible for holding
> your finger in the dike?   You certainly sound panicked. 

Well, possibly some frustration. The dike and finger allegory is most 
apt.

Bo