[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi DMB. Matt Kundert mentioned

On 31 Jan. 

> Bo said to Andre:In the non-SOM MOQ there is no real/theoretical
> distinction (this is the 4th. level's value) the DQ/SQ split has taken
> over from the S/O split. Still with me?
 
> dmb says:Oh, I see. I think you're suffering from a misconception that
> is easily clear up by a simple statement. DQ and sq are both real.
> They're different to be sure and so it makes tons of sense to split
> things up that way but this distinction shouldn't be taken to mean
> that static quality is unreal. Here it can help to recall that other
> simple statement; experience is reality. That's the easiest
> formulation of radicial empiricism. DQ and sq are both known in
> experience. 

I am the one who have kept repeating that the DQ/SQ has taken 
over from the S/O and - further - that these splits are NOT of any 
pre-existing reality sitting up there waiting to be split (Matt Kundert 
agreed.Please come forward Matt!) How you read any 
misconception of the DQ/SQ not being real is beyond me. 

What must be avoided is the misconception of a "dynamic" Quality  
above and separate from the "static" DQ/SQ constellation 
stemming from the initial faulty "diagram" drawings. Again, the 
radical empiricism postulate a something ahead of S and O. This 
Pirsig agrees with - only adds that this is Quality - and THIS must 
necessarily be the DQ of the DQ/SQ. If you agree we have "cold 
fusion" ;-)        

> There has been a lot of discussion around here about how subject and
> objects are not the ground of reality, about how the subjective self
> is not the real self and this sort of talk is probably what's got you
> tripped up. But that sort of discussion is just about getting rid of
> subjects and objects as THEE metaphysical ground of reality and
> instead saying, no, they're just static patterns, 

Not the least tripped up, I have identified the S/O as the 4th. level.

> just concepts we use
> to guide experience. And they work pretty well most of the time too.
> In that sense, they're real. They're just not the ultimate or
> exclusive reality.

Total agreement!


Bo