[MD] Some historical perspective

[skutvik at online.no]

Marsha

24 Oct.

You had said:
> > He saw something beyond the standard interpretations.

I had replied::
> He  did, but why, oh why, did Pirsig refuse to "translate" ZAMM in the
> light of the MOQ thereby leaving us with one Quality as the real thing
> and then the quality of the MOQ as some secondhand imperfect article
> with Static Quality even lesser value -  "mere concepts" as you harp
> on.  

Marsha:now
> It seems to me there is a difference between stating that spovs are
> ever-changing, interrelated, interconnected, relative and
> 'conceptually constructed' and stating that they are 'mere concepts'. 
> I have not used the words 'mere concepts', but I cannot elevate static
> patterns of value to an equivalent of a thing-in-itself either. These
> spovs represent a provisional world.  Is it a world that is
> ontologically indeterminate and epistemologically indeterminate???   

"Interrelated". Yes, the levels grow out of - on top of - each other and 
form an "interconnected" hierarchy. But "ever-changing" and 
"relative" is what the "static" term don't indicate. And "conceptually 
constructed"?  You once pointed to Bohr's "we are suspended in 
language" thus it's the ocean we swim in, there's noting not conveyed 
by language in this world.    

> Honestly, sometimes I just want to stick to Quality being equivalent
> to 'there is nothing to know and no one to know it'.  Period. 
> End-of-story. Mu.  Ohm.  Shanti, shanti, shanti...        

Sure, the MOQ postulates a DQ which is "nothingness", why search 
for something more?

Bodvar