[MD] Knowledge as MOQ's intellect

[MarshaV]

At 02:51 AM 12/16/2007, you wrote:
>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.

Greetings Bo,

I don't see the dualism.  There's only 
Quality-Reality-Experience.  That a portion (spovs) has become 
manifested, or become identified within the human experience doesn't 
change that all is Quality  The MOQ's levels are a valuable way to 
consider the portion of Quality we experience as identified 
pattern.  Of course the levels are value, value through and through, 
experience through and through.  I don't see the REAL versus JUST 
dichotomy.

Maybe a better way to discuss this MOQ point-of-view in the 
Intellectual Level would be to do as the devilish Tittivulus did, and 
focus on experience, Experience-Reality-Quality.


> > 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 By now the site is outdated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.

I'd like to see a diagram.  Maybe you could send it to me offlist, or 
have Horse post it on the MOQ website.  Whether diagram or language, 
I find trying to confine what is outside of levels problematic.  But 
I would like to see what sort of diagram you would invent.



> > 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.

Good.  I thought you object to the fact that Norway isn't Holland.

Marsha