[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[skutvik at online.no]

Marsha.

On 25 Nov. you wrote:
 
> Greetings Bo,
> I do not want to interfere with Peter and your teaching thread, but I
> have a question.  Ignore it if it sidetracks your train of thought.
 
> How would the Dynamic Quality (Quality) that you would put into a MOQ
> Level not just be another intellectual analogy?

The MOQ is the DQ/SQ dualism, there's no dynamic without 
static or even worse, a Quality outside the MOQ. At first Pirsig 
made a big deal about a Quality that all and any words about 
(metaphysics) destroys, but this (QUALITY//DQ/SQ) 
configuration soon became so absurd that Pirsig finally said that 
the Quality he spoke about in ZAMM is the DQ of the MOQ 

But he soon forgot this and in the Summary (2005) he again 
stresses this Quality outside everything and that the MOQ is a 
mere static description. This is perhaps his Buddhist leaning 
where words are mere signs that point to something that can't be 
described, however even Buddhists have to use language to 
convey these subtleties so IMO language has the same function 
as the paper of a diagram, when one speaks/writes it's all there 
is. To try to avoid this is futile.

Well, these are my premises. What were your question ;-) yes  

> How would the Dynamic Quality (Quality) that you would put into a MOQ
> Level not just be another intellectual analogy? 

The Dynamic/Static is an aggregate, you can't have one without 
the other and it constitute the meta-level one has to enter to see 
the Quality Reality. From here one sees the level context, 
particularly intellect's new and humble role. Before it imagined 
itself to be IT ALL (SOM), now it's safely "domesticated" in the 
role of the VALUE of the S/O distinction.  

The notion of intellect as "analogies" stems from the said 
"language as different from reality" fallacy, but that is a blind ally.  

IMO

Bo