[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[Platt Holden]

> Hey Andre,
> 
> > Dynamic Quality:undifferentiated (unpatterned) aesthetic continuum.
> > Static Quality: differentiated, (patterned) aesthetic continuum.
> 
> Hadn't seen the Quality division expressed this way before. Well said.
> Thanks.
> Platt
> 
> Andre:
> 
> Thanks Platt but please look at some of the questions I have asked
> related
> to this way of putting things. Sometimes I am not aware of the
> ontological,
> epistemological or philosophical/metaphysical spin-offs of what I am
> saying, suggesting or asking.
> I am only the son of a former tulip growing farmer (rest his soul).
> 
> Why the pre-conceptual/conceptual (among other dualisms)?? Are we not
> (part
> of ) real(ity).
> I can fathom 'pre- intellectual' but as soon as the intellectualising
> starts
> to hit 'people' begin to talk about concepts etc.( all SOM to me).
> Does this confirm Bodvar's SOL, if so, why the opposition? If not,
> please
> explain?

Can't speak for Bo of course, but remember what Pirsig said about doing a 
metaphysics being a degenerate activity which I take to mean 
conceptualizing to be like a menu with no food. But since we come into this 
world with no capacities to survive other than our mental abilities, and 
since these abilities require that we divide what we symbolize from the 
things symbolized (concepts from percepts), division is what we do, i.e., 
we divide to survive. 

But -- and this is key -- how we divide is up for grabs. Currently the 
popular fundamental division is S/O. Before that become popular, there was 
we/Gods. For Plato it was ideals/appearances. For Pirsig it is SQ/DQ. I'm 
sure there were many other fundamental divisions throughout human history 
and even currently among different cultures. These divisions were 
symbolized in Lila as spectacles, otherwise know as worldviews. 

Not sure this answers your question, but as I see it the opposition to Bo's 
SOL comes from the firm belief (perhaps subliminal) that S/O is the one 
best way if not the only way to divide experience, regardless of what 
Pirsig says.

Be assured I too don't have the slightest idea if what I say is 
ontological, epistemological or philosophical/metaphysical. I'm just the 
son of a draftsman. 

Regards, 
Platt