[MD] The levels undressed

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ian

31 Aug. you said:

> No doubt S & D are the first split of Q.
> Q is therefore the whole.
 
> The key phrase Bo is "supposed to be".
> How can a metaphysics and reality be one and the same thing.
> One is "supposed to be" a representation of the other, and is a part
> of that same reality.

This sounds obvious dear Ian, but contains all that the SOM/ MOQ 
controversy is about. First of all: SOM is MOQ's creation, this we 
must understand, in SOM-land no one knows any SOM, they are 
in the same position as ancient mankind were regarding the planet 
earth; their earth went on downwards for ever while heaven 
continued unendingly upwards. To SOMists the universe is S/O-
divided, the world is objective while what we think about it is 
subjective. Full stop!

It's from the MOQ seen that there is something ahead of the S/O 
divide and when the MOQ postulates that this is Quality and is 
dynamic/static-divided it disappears from the MOQ. Our universe 
is DQ/SQ-divided, full stop! 

To claim that QUALITY is the main thing and the Dynamic/Static 
slash is secondary is futile. Pirsig tries it by saying that the SOM 
really is a "moq", but a S/O "moq" is no better than the traditional 
article. It's the "M" that counts. The SOM stripped of its 
metaphysical rank can remain MOQ's highest static level without a 
hitch ... MUST exist in that capacity to give it any explanatory or 
liberating power. 

Bo       







 
> Looking forward to reading Magnus' latest piece.
> Ian
> 
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:24 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > Chris and Magnus
> >
> > 30 Aug. Christoffer Ivarsson wrote:
> >
> > Bo before:
> >> >> BTW, what do you see as the first split? To some it seems to be
> >> >> DQ/MOQ but is supposed to be DQ/SQ no?
> >
> > Then Magnus :
> >> > DQ/MoQ? I don't follow, do you mean DQ/Reality? But no, of course
> >> > the first split is DQ/SQ.
> >
> > Chris:
> >> I think he means that people tend to view DQ as separate from the
> >> MOQ, and - in essance - make it to zenish, Bodvar has pointed out
> >> on many occations that DQ and SQ exists only when you look at the
> >> world through MOQ glasses. But of course metaphysical glasses are
> >> fundamental so..
> >
> > Yes, some seem to envisage an even greater "MOQ" that looks
> > like this: Quality=Reality/MOQ, while I maintain that the rock
> > bottom divide is DQ/SQ. As Chris points out a metaphysics is
> > supposed to be reality. Only with Aristotles did we get SOM's
> > "Reality/Metaphysics".
> >
> > Bo.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
>