[MD] DMB and Me

[david buchanan]

Thanks Andre. I think your comments are right and well put. 

I think Bo has his own thing going but he makes a common mistake. He misunderstands the most basic distinction of the MOQ BECAUSE the mystical aspect does not compute for him. Matt does the same thing for different reasons and with different consequences, but the root cause is the same, namely an inability to accept and/or comprehend the sense in which Quality is a mystic term. 

There is another major misconception involved in Bo's SOL. His formulation defies the MOQ's repositioning of subjects and objects. Whereas Bo wants to equate SOM with the intellectual level, Pirsig says that subjects are social and intellectual level static quality while objects are organic and inorganic static quality. SOM is a set of ideas but those ideas are about how to carve up the whole static world. The problem is that it leaves out the dynamic. It leaves out everything that isn't static. It leaves out half of reality. And for different reasons, Matt and Bo are leaving out half of the world, dismissing the primary empirical reality from which the other half is derived.
They are leaving Quality out of the Metaphysics of Quality. As far as the MOQ goes, it's hard to imagine a bigger mistake. 

Later,

dmb

 
> 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
> 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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1