[MD] Academy

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Joe

Sat May 10 you said:

> On Friday 9 May 1:00 PM SA writes to Bo:
 
> > SA:  Bo, this is what I mean.  Where up above do you
> > say what dq/sq split is, other than an axiom?  This is
> > the same as saying lapodocoldieameida is reality.  I'm
> > not trying to be harsh, but if you can't say what
> > dq/sq split is, then lapodocoldieameida might be
> > better instead. Don't you think?  Is your reality
> > complete mu, complete denial of everything, such as
> > Jainism?  If these comments are true, then your
> > reality is truly personal, thus, something I wouldn't
> > know about only you would.  Is that your intent?

> Hi SA, Bo and all,
> I realize this is addressed to Bo, but I want to add my two cents to ³a
> statement accepted as true without proof or argument². IMO Dq/sq is a
> simple division.  DQ is undefined and SQ is defined reality.  

Yes, that's just it and I would have stopped there.

> Put that statement into history.  DQ in metaphysics is the Conscious
> only experience of an individual.  

When you equalize DQ with "Conscious Only" Consciousness is 
reality's ground and a Metaphysics of Consciousness emerges. Still 
I'm not totally against it, to me it's the Dynamic/Static distinction that 
counts as different from the Subject/Object one.  

> It differs from the subjective
> experience of SOM, which proposes an abstracted essence given
> intentional existence in a mind.  

This sounds a bit contrived. SOM simply postulates an 
internal=subjective existence totally and utterly removed from an 
external=objective existence. Full stop!!! This creates a host of 
paradoxes because the internal and external existences obviously 
interacts constantly. These paradoxes are what the MOQ's Dynamic 
Existence/Static Existence split resolves (dissolves really) This simple 
it is, why make it so horribly complicated? 

That's for you Joe ;-)  this Spirit from Adirondack is even worse off, 
she (comes through as a nagging woman regadless of sex) doesn't 
even understand that the S/O and DQ/SQ are postulates that 
constitutes reality along their master-patterns and believes that she 
can sit at some neutral ground and decide what's nonsense. The proof 
is in the pudding and to this day I haven't found one snag with the 
MOQ - provided the SOL interpretation (that the 4th level =S/O)

Come Bradfords and Struan Helliger (in his Theo Schramm guise) 
from old, they didn't buy the MOQ and openly tried to sabotage it, but 
participants who allegedly have read Pirsig's books and understood 
the MOQ and then says that they are shocked that the DQ/SQ is just 
an axiom ... and - like SA - repeats that the SOL interpretation is 
flawed without haven't understood the first things about the MOQ... 
phew I haven't recovered yet. Reminds me of Squonktails. 

Joe ctd:
> DQ is a real, undefined, conscious experience of existence.  SQ can be
> described as a Conscious/Mechanical experience. The Conscious element
> in SQ experience is embodied in ³analogy², metaphor, or gesture. The
> Mechanical element is defined mathematically.  Another way of looking
> at it, DQ is an order in existence and is a law unto itself.  SQ is a
> Manifestation in existence, requiring three aspects for
> intelligibility, what it is, what it isn¹t, what supports it (DQ).
> Evolution is an acknowledgement of the duality DQ/SQ. Metaphysics is
> DQ/SQ. This is how I understand how Bo envisions a MOQ meta-level of
> metaphysics ³an axiom accepted as true without proof or argument². 

Oh, the meta-level! I don't know how to approach that when speaking 
to people who don't understand the enormity of the MOQ (that's for 
SA) but all/any system constitutes such a position from where the 
system is seen and applied, thus the MOQ is no 5th. level or anything 
of its own making. It IS itself.

Bo