[MD] dualism

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Heather

13 Feb. you wrote:

>  See:  SODV paper by R. Pirsig. on quantum physics
> and the MoQ.

It may look as if I pick and chose what supports "my" MOQ and 
perhaps I do, at least the SODV paper isn't my favorite.      
 
> You see two 'things' when I look at one 'thing'
> called a clay pot.

I don't see more than you do when handling pots and pans, but 
here we discuss the finer points of things.     

>  Well, I'm involved in one event, with many
> particulars happening in this one event.  I'm aware
> and alert, and yes I think, thus, intellectualize.

Another fine point. Your Cartesian sentence seems to be "I think 
and therefor I intellectualize" but my favorite the Stone Age 
people did a lot of thinking without being at the intellectual level.  

> You've made the intellectual level just S/O.  See what
> Pirsig has to say about S/O, and the divide in SODV
> paper. 

Intellect is MOQ's "parent" and as such it hates being reduced to 
a static sub-set within the MOQ, it wants to retain its lofty position 
as THINKING where the MOQ is a mere "thought" among other. 
If you mean Pirsig's way of integrating SOM 
(inorganic+organic=objects ...etc.) it's another weak point that 
flies in the face of the true MOQ, but it's wasted energy to bring 
up these things to you. 

> Also, back to dq and sq.  I am a static
> pattern.  I have a body and mind.  

The intellectual level says you are S/O divided, while the MOQ 
says you are ALL static patterns.  

> I'm involved with
> society and inorganic patterns.  I depend on the
> latter for me to even exist, and all of these levels
> are reality.

You ARE social and inorganic patterns ... in addition to biological 
and intellectual ones. Agree about levels being reality .. seen 
from the levels. Only from the MOQ that the Q-context is 
realized. Even intellect is blind to the greater context, yes, it is 
PARTICULARLY blind and the toughest static bond to shake off. 

> Dq is undefined, and thus, sq is dq
> defined.  

Yes, yes, but what's new here? Once one starts to scratch the 
surface of the static levels their dynamic "nature" reveals itself, 
but from the level, that only sees the surface, it looks like reality. 

> You come from a different paradigm, and boil
> everybody down to the soil level unless we can label a
> clay pot with subjects and objects.  It's just a clay
> pot, but anyways... my mind (intellectual level) is
> different from your mind (intellectual level).  For
> you to erase my mind and call my mind something social
> is making the world what you think it is, instead of
> what the world knows it is (the world includes you,
> too, you know).  I'm done.  We haven't changed
> positions so I respectfully honor your position and
> hope you would do the same.

It's sad to see such misunderstandings, but you are still in 
intellect's grip and can't be helped. 
 
Bo