[MD] Academy

[Ron Kulp]

[Bo]
> But now it's quiz time. You
> see the MOQ resolving the issue.
> Please tell me how you see
> that done.
Ian:
What I did say was that "teaching them a lesson" in MoQ was probably
not the best solution. Teachning by the example of using Quality
thinking was the better answer - still is IMHO.

But I can answer the specific question too. Almost too easy.

The first split above "Quality" as our (chosen) metaphysical
foundation is Dynamic / Static, rather than S/O .... need I go on ?

The reason it resolves many of the dichotomous either / or issues that
SOMists find themselves debating / arguing about is that they are
really choosing between two seemingly objective alternatives,

Ron:
Mind/matter are two objective alternatives? Really? Then there is no
paradox eh? They are both objective you say.

Ian continues:
 when we
know that in fact they are not (need not). The view they are missing
is typically that the options they are debating are two static
patterns, and that the option they are missing is the excluded middle
of some dynamic balance / interaction of those patterns - their
patterns are rarely "wrong" merely historically static. The best way
to find those dynamic alternatives .... need I go on ... participation
... etc. I know I don't need to explain MoQism to you.

Ron:
Bo, Ian, 
What I fail to see is HOW by defining reality by STATIC
Patterns better describes reality than OBJECTIVISM.?
Isn't interpreting reality as static patterns really 
Just solving objectivism by redefinition? 

The Paradox S/O can't solve is the Mind/matter "problem". Right?
SOM treats subjective experience objectively and reaches a dead end.. 

By asserting that they are two Static patterns you are in a sense
Objectifying subjective experience. So now supposedly the feeling of Joy
Is equal with the experience of a rock. 
MoQ has bridged the mind/matter gap by placing any experience that can
not be defined As DQ. So now we have a situation where what we can not
define
Is put in the indefinable category. And what we can define in the static
Category. 
Seems to me we are right back where we started. With Objective being
what
We can define with certainty and subjective where we can not. 

My Question is, how does this supply any better explanatory power than
Traditional SOM. We are stuck in the same situation of experiencing
A whole side of reality that can not be defined. I Experience a whole
Host of things that can not be defined. Is'nt leaving it undefined
And swallowing it as DQ just the same as objectively writing off
subjective
as non-existent? Really what are we gaining by using DQ/SQ in this
Manner? Surely you MoQ teachers can help us along in this simple
question
>From simple minds.
In your own words please since you both have an understanding that out
reaches Pirsigs and our own.

Thanks