[MD] now it comes

[skutvik at online.no]

DMB

26 July you had been thinking harder (good, my arguments make an 
impact):

> Bo asked:... And moreover who says that SQ are "static concepts"?
> except DMB. 
 
> dmb says:
> MOQers, this is a great example of why it is completely pointless to
> discuss anything with Bo. He asked the question just a few days after
> I showed BO that James and Pirsig both say what static concepts are.
> Further, it is a passage from Lila that I have quoted and explained
> many, many times. 

SQ as "concepts" my  foot! The first static level is the inorganic, then 
biology ... and so on, only at the intellectual level does concept appear  
but only in a most roundabout fashion because that level is the split 
between an objective reality and our subjective, conceptual, 
renderings of it. Thus your pet quote presented as matching DQ/SQ in 
general erodes MOQ's fundament. Admittedly it is from LILA, but as 
said to Arlo, Pirsig seems willing to recant the real MOQ to stay out of 
harms way (i.e. being accused of relapsing to insanity). We must help 
out his old Phaedrus self.

Bodvar

PS
Seriously, DMB,  do you consider the static levels and their patterns as 
"concepts"? Even your staunchest followers must rear at that.







 
> "...he [James] meant that subjects and objects are not the starting
> points of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are
> CONCEPTS derived from something more fundamental which he described as
> 'the immediate flux of life' ... James had condensed this description
> to a single sentence: 'There must always be a discrepancy between
> CONCEPTS and reality, because the former are STATIC and discontinuous
> while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen
> exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of
> the MOQ. ...Value, the pragmatic test of truth, is also the primary
> empirical experience. The MOQ says pure experience is value. ...Value
> is at the very front of the empirical procession."
> 
> Further, Bo keeps misinterpreting the relationship between DQ and sq
> AS IT IS EXPLAINED IN THIS PASSAGE. As any literate person should be
> able to see, Pirsig and James are both saying that subject and objects
> are BOTH static concepts. That is to say neither are dynamic. Bo
> thinks that I think DQ is equal to an objective reality and sq is
> equal to subjective mind. Nope. That not what James or Pirsig or I am
> saying. Subject and objects are both static concepts. DQ can NOT be
> equated to either of them because they are BOTH derived from DQ.
> 
> Does anyone, other than the usual suspects, have any problem grasping
> this? It's just so clear and simple to me that I'm a bit stunned that
> anyone could fail to see it, let alone fail year after year after
> year. Is there something confusing about that passage?
> 
> Calling all sane people, calling all sane people. I need a reality
> check. 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________ The
> New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with
> Hotmail.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid
> =PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 Moq_Discuss mailing
> list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
>