[MD] Empirical and Historical

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Bo, 


On 13 Jul 2009 at 8:55, skutvik at online.no wrote:

> Hi Platt
> 
> 11 July you  wrote:
> 
> > Maybe there are two MOQ's. 1) the mystic MOQ of direct experience, 2)
> > the idea MOQ consisting of DQ/SQ with a hierarchy of static patterns.
> 
> There definitely are two Qualities; Dynamic or "mystic" quality, and 
> static quality.  
> 
> > MOQ 1 is monism, without pattern, consisting solely of value.
> 
> All right, it's dynamic no more no less.
> 
> > MOQ 2 is dualism, patterned, consisting of many ideas.
> 
> It's static and comes in the known 4 levels. Ideas, concepts, thoughts 
> ..et. equal to "static" (the Quality/MOQ assertion)  I don't buy. Nothing 
> can be conveyed without language.

OK. You've shot down the idea that the MOQ can be split into two parts. 
For you, it's all or nothing, all meaning you can't separate DQ out of it 
and still have the MOQ. The only reason Pirsig split Quality reality was 
because he had to in order to describe it in language. Is that your 
position?


> > Question: Where does MOQ 2 belong in the MOQ 2 hierarchy of levels?
> 
> See below!
> 
> > Answer: Not in the intellectual level because the MOQ cannot be a part
> > of itself.. So MOQ 2 must be in a metal-level, or perhaps the level of
> > art Pirsig briefly mentioned.
> 
> Where the MOQ belongs in the MOQ is a tricky question, I have used 
> the term "meta-level", but people easily misunderstand and believe 
> it's a static level outside intellect, but it is the DQ/SQ reality itself. All 
> efforts to keep DQ outside of the MOQ is futile

You say the MOQ is reality itself. But how can a metaphysics be reality 
itself? A metaphysics is a description of reality. As such it's a part of 
reality, not all of reality. For one thing a description of reality would 
leave out the describer. For another thing, it leaves out patterns other 
than patterns of itself. Do you get my drift? What am I missing?

> Scientific theories can be presented as independent of the theory and 
> the latter-day Pirsig tries the same with the MOQ, as if he accidentally 
> discovered Quality's unique position, but as he demonstrated in 
> ZAMM (the Newton Gravity example) he Quality Reality is the MOQ. 
> Not as an idea in Pirsig's mind, but as the metaphysics, wherever it 
> had its origin.  

I need further explanation of this. Is the MOQ separate from the idea of 
the MOQ? If so, where does the idea of the MOQ fit into the MOQ?

Or is paradox our lot in life when it comes to thinking about reality?

Regards,
Platt