[MD] What is the MOQ?

[skutvik at online.no]

Marsha

On 24 April:

Bo (to Krimel):

> >Try to muster your logic. The DQ/SQ dualism STARTS WITH
> >THE SAID SPLIT, no Quality before this division and no such
> >are still sitting atop of it all. You see this trick exposed in case
> >of SOM (on page 243 in my ZMM) where Pirsig makes it look like a
> >"reality" is ahead of the subject/object-division. This is wrong,
> >it's directly S/O-divided, no reality before or afterwards.

Marsha:
> I don't see such split.  It's ALL Quality.  The MOQ is monistic. The
> static levels are just mind differentiating patterns.  The patterns
> are mind making arbitrary, but useful (hopefully) boundaries.  The
> Dynamic/static split is also just a useful split.  Since Quality (DQ)
> "is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is
> a knower and a known", all we can talk about are the patterns
> (analogies).  And if we are talking about them, it is theory
> (intellectual).  And the best anyone can hope for is that this
> thinking is mostly deliberate (intellectual) rather than unconscious
> (social).  At least that is how I think about it.

I have often used the ocean/wave metaphor, the waves are water 
too, and in that sense the MOQ is a monism, but it's the waves 
AS DIFFERENT from the smooth surface that counts, and makes 
it a dualism. 

> "The patterns are mind making arbitrary, but useful (hopefully)
> boundaries....

The MOQ rejects the S/O distinction, thus there's neither mind 
nor matter inside the MOQ. If it's "mind" that splits Quality than 
it's "mind" that perceives Quality  and in that case Quality exists 
only in (our) "mind" which becomes reality's ground and a 
Metaphysics of Mind is called for.       

> Since Quality (DQ) "is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the
> sense that there is a knower and a known", all we can talk about are
> the patterns (analogies).     

Right, DQ is indefinable and as such different from SQ and no 
problem arises  until  the mere designation "DQ" a definition that 
requires a Quality beyond.  But isn't this Quality beyond also 
desecrated by speaking about it and requires another Quality 
...etc. ad infinity?

BTW, where did you find the term "indivisible" regarding Quality?    

> And if we are talking about them, it is theory (intellectual).  And the
> best anyone can hope for is that this thinking is mostly deliberate
> (intellectual) rather than unconscious (social).  At least that is how
> I think about it. 

What is not conveyed by language - written, spoken or silent as 
thoughts in (your) mind? This of language as something 
secondary is part of intellect's (SOM's) subject/object premises so 
it's quite an irony  that the metaphysics which is to replace SOM 
adopted its premises.     

Bo