[MD] DMB and Me

[Andre Broersen]

Steve:
I prefer to read Pirsig as saying Quality is reality. DQ/sq is a nice
tool for thinking about reality.

And Bodvar replies:
You see the mess that the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics" has
created, the MOQ is totally log-jammed the only fish that thrives in
these muddy waters are the Matt and DMB kind. Kudos to you dear
Steve for not liking this state, but you will certainly not have any replies
from Pirsig, he knows well that he is the cause of the impasse.

Andre butts in:
You are correct Steve by suggesting that Quality, the undifferentiated
aesthetic continuum, the flux, the Tao, Emptiness is reality, the
cutting edge, the source of  'pure' experience. This is the ineffabe,
the non-conceptual, the dynamic 'perspective' that cannot even be
called a perspective.( only convenioally)

Then there is our static representation of it. Pirsig has provided us
with the highest quality representation to date an he called it the
Metaphysics of Quality.

The MoQ represents, what is termed the 'conventional view'. The static
representations of the dynamic, the 'world' of form, call it the
'common sense' view. This view is not reality itself , it is a static,
conceptualised representation thereof.

This gives rise to the two views or perpectives: one dynamic, one static.

All this is shown in Anthony's PhD. The two perspectives are derived
from Nagarjuna's 'Middle Way' ( if you are interested in the
dialecical method as used by Nagarjuna).

There is no impasse, no contradiction, no difficulty, nothing...just emptiness.

Bodvar:
If DMB has begun to see the impossibility of the Quality/MOQ atrocity.
Good

Andre:
I doubt very much if dmb even contemplates the possibility of
contemplating this.

The Quality/MoQ is very simple: Quality= dynamic= experience=
undifferentiated= unpatterned.

MoQ=a metaphysical representation, static forms of this experience=
diferentiated, language use, patterned as such coneptualised.

Nothing messy, nothing atrocious about this.

Andre