[MD] Half-baked MOQ

[skutvik at online.no]

Ron and Group

The "What's missing" thread is threadbare so I change it

On 29 Mar. you wrote:

Ron originally:
> > > MOQ is life oriented and perhaps Why it feels like a budding 5th.

My reply: 
> > Well, at least it is a "meta-level" that contains the MOQ. It displays
> > some level-like characteristics regarding its parent - intellect - but I
> > would not call it a static level because it contains DQ as well. I know
> > I am at my wits end here, but claiming that Quality is outside the MOQ
> > is even further out.    

> [ron]
> It sounds to me that you are developing a sort of MOQ psychology, I
> sense that a metaphysic which Is based in an undefineable concept is
> basing it on a concept which is then out side of it since It defies
> its own description.

This was a tough one to unravel. Is "you" this person or Pirsig 
because it's him that bases the MOQ on "an indefinable concept" 
But what metaphysics/theory does NOT start with an axiom which 
means ""accepted as true without proof"? The proof is in the 
pudding.   

> Thus when Marsha refered to the taoist metaphor
> that by focusing Too much in anything static you thereby are
> "mistaking the finger pointing to the moon for the moon Itself." in
> other words you must understand what the static patterns are pointing
> to which is dynamic.

I feel that many come to the MOQ with their half-baked 
"mysticism" and believe that it is the harbor for such. The static 
levels as static for the reason of NOT being dynamic, not 
"metaphors" for something dynamic.      

> And can never be defined thus the paradox and why
> some here do not understand the complex structure.

The static levels CAN be defined (wish I could find the proper 
quote from LILA). SOM created paradoxes, but the MOQ 
dissolves them. I believe it's the half-baked moqists who have 
created the impression of the static hierarchy as paradoxical.     

> Created in it's
> undefinable name and liken it to dogma. Because to some the whole damn
> thing is Subjective and not for mass consumption.

Subjective, what rubbish! Over to the "moon/finger" issue. I don't 
think it's an original Tao saying, but some morsel Taoist offers 
the West in the hope that they will understand that the light in the 
sky only becomes "moon" with language. However, the half-
baked moqist mixes in their  half-baked mysticism and it looks as 
if language is "intellect" and as intellect (to them) is subjective 
and because the MOQ (to them) is an intellectual pattern the 
MOQ is "subjective" or  metamorphic. 

(couldn't you put in an occasional comma sign to make your texts 
a bit easier to understand?)  

IMO

Bo