[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[MarshaV]

At 03:31 AM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
>Andre and Group.
>
>DMB's and my (mine? I never ger the correct phrase in
>Nowinglish) arm-length posts takes all my time and energy.
>
>6 March you said
> > Addendum: what I was getting at when referring to your INSIDE the MOQ:
> > Quality cannot be 'inside' anything. Quality has the MoQ and not the
> > other way around. The Zen circle is not closed. Just to keep my
> > perspective which is not necessarily contradicting what I mentioned
> > before.
>
>The "inside" adverb may sound a bit claustrophobic, will "in" be
>better? Yet I refer to Pirsig's about "
>
>     "But even then the assertion that metaphysics is
>     meaningless sounded false to him.  As long as you're
>     inside a logical, coherent universe of thought you can't
>     escape metaphysics.  Logical positivism's criteria for
>     "meaningfulness" were pure metaphysics, he thought."
>
>Besides Quality IS the MOQ or vice versa, the Quality/MOQ "meta-
>metaphysics" is poison inside Quality Universe.
>The below in ZAMM is one of the most thrilling passages and the
>one that gave me gooseflesh the first time I read it and made me
>realize that I would not come out of this reading "unscathed".
>
>     .....that before the beginning of the earth, before the sun
>     and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of
>     anything, Quality existed. Sitting there, having no mass of
>     its own, no energy of its own, not in anyone's mind
>     because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there
>     was no space either, not anywhere...this Quality still
>     existed?'' Now John seems not so sure. ``If Quality
>     existed,'' I say, ``I honestly don't know what a thing has to
>     do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that Quality has
>     passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot
>     think of a single attribute of nonexistence that that Quality
>     didn't have. Or a single scientific attribute of existence it
>     did have. And yet it is still `common sense' to believe that it
>     existed.''
>
>(I have put Quality in place of "the law of Gravity")
>
>Bodvar

The actual  quote from ZMM:

-------------

``What I'm driving at,'' I say, ``is the notion that before the 
beginning of the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, 
before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed.''

``Sure.''

``Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not 
in anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because 
there was no space either, not anywhere...this law of gravity still existed?''

Now John seems not so sure.

``If that law of gravity existed,'' I say, ``I honestly don't know 
what a thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of 
gravity has passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot 
think of a single attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity 
didn't have. Or a single scientific attribute of existence it did 
have. And yet it is still `common sense' to believe that it existed.''

John says, ``I guess I'd have to think about it.''

-------------


.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.