[MD] Another parallel

[skutvik at online.no]

John and Dave

19 July :

> John said to Bo:
> ... But I thought I recalled that SQ is divided into the
> Romantic/Classic and DQ stands alone.
 
> dmb says:
> I think that's right. Classical and romantic are two styles of
> thought, with the former focusing on the particulars and the latter
> seeing things in terms of wholes, but they are both static. It's like
> the difference between Aristotle and Plato. That's why he abandons
> those terms in the second book and replaces them with static quality
> and Dynamic Quality. I think it would be a big mistake to equate DQ
> with romantic thinking. 


How long will this Quality/DQ//SQ (or Quality/MOQ) continue to haunt 
this discussion? Pirsig has said that Quality is the DQ of the DQ/SQ. 
It's plain that the romantic part was what became DQ and as plain is it 
that's this is Quality before it spawns any SQ, but just as plain is it 
that DQ has spawned DQ, thus the Quality Reality is the DQ/SQ 
configuration.. Get it? 

But for each new participant who reports the same procedure must be 
performed it seems, s/he points to the motorcycle diagram and 
compare it with the Quality where Quality sits above the DQ/SQ just 
like the motorcycle sits unscathed above its engine and frame, but 
"reality" is no motorcycle. Once divided there is no undivided reality 
left. 

Look to SOM, It does not postulate any X which is S/O-divided, it 
merely has one subjective and one objective reality, the latter the 
enigmatic realm that we subjectively try to fathom the workings of. 
Thus the MOQ is one dynamic and one static reality, however in this 
case the dynamic does not have "workings", the SOM "illusion" has 
become part of the the static repertoire - the intellectual.

If Quality becomes the "objective" part of existence that the "static" 
MOQ is just one theory about we are solidly back in SOM-land.

Bodvar