[MD] Why isn't the hot stove obvious?

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mati

20 Dec.u wrote to Andre:

Andre before:
> >  Maybe you need to explain this once more Bodvar but to suggest a 
> > static part 'belonging' to Quality (i.e. SQ) is already a 
> > transgression of the ineffable.  Not one moment is an exact same
> > copy of the 'previous' moment. It is only convenient to pretend it
> > is. In other words, it is a high quality intellectual PoV. 

Mati:
> I apologize for butting in, but quality is the sum of both DQ/SQ. As
> Pirsig himself highlighted that when you make the first cut, Quality
> itself is prey to distortion. 

You are most welcome Mati. The Quality Reality can only exist in the
DQ/SQ form (the fact that SQ is Quality too secures the underlying
unity). We must understand MOQ's fundamental difference from SOM. 
Admittedly Pirsig (in ZAMM) makes it sound as if SOM has a "Reality"
ahead of the S/O split, but that is not so, it has ONE
subjective and ONE objective reality. In diagram form two separate 
boxes with no connecting "dash" between them. While the MOQ's 
diagram is DQ spawning SQ. See, the latter "flesh of its mother's 
flesh".   


> Pirsig holy grail was to understand quality better than SOM, hence
> MOQ.

Pirsig's "tormentor" was SOM, but he did not recognize it as such 
rather - like me if I dare - thought it reality itself. Then the "what is 
quality" quest, then the "dilemma" confrontation and then the "getting 
warmer" sequence (all in ZAMM) and only after the insight that 
subjects & objects are Quality fallouts, SOM  was born. After that he 
started on the sketch of a new metaphysics (based on the 
"Quality=Reality" axiom) which had SOM as its  only "level", also called 
"intellect".  

But in LILA he starts over again trying to prove the "Quality=Reality" 
axiom and so much energy was wasted on that that the MOQ became 
something secondary. But it is an axiom and cannot be proved, it's 
case is strong, but there are other "unassimilated" candidates - Andre 
suggested NOTHINGNESS - and it would make for a perfect 
Metaphysics of Nothingness, Dynamic Nothingness/Static 
Nothingness, in my opinion it's the Dynamic/Static split which is the 
stroke of genius.    

> The beauty of MOQ is that it divides quality in a capacity with the
> minimum distortion. 

Agree, the dynamic/static is the best divide, but this phrase: "divide of 
Quality" invites the fallacy of a Quality left AFTER the divide which 
must be avoided, it's DQ that spawns static levels, not any QUALITY 
spawning the MOQ.     

> We have the for static levels representing an evolutionary pattern of
> values. Each distinct by it own nature and propelled by DQ.  When we
> look at an intellectual pattern as a whole that encompasses both DQ/SQ,
> we note that it is both dynamic and static, hence I believe your
> comment, "Not one moment is an exact same copy of the 'previous'
> moment."  The diversity of patterns over time is one of the
> characteristics of DQ. But to understand intellect, and cut the SOM
> tethers we need to separate it from DQ, and see what we have. When we
> do this we see that SOM is naked as a J-Bird, a static pattern that
> exists separate unto itself.  When it cloaks itself in DQ, then it
> continues the deception itself is greater than a function of a static
> pattern, such as "mind". 

The static levels are static because they are NOT dynamic. STATIC
intellectual patterns aren't any more dynamic than static inorganic.

Bodvar










------- End of forwarded message -------


------- End of forwarded message -------