[MD] DMB and Me

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar to Andre:
Andre:
> Who is postulating another 'more dynamic' article?

You - or really Pirsig - by the pesky "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics.

Andre:
It is not 'another...article'.

Bodvar:
If the DQ of the MOQ isn't the real Quality what is?

Andre:
Not sure if it is the 'real' Quality but DQ is!

Bodvar:
Isn't the MOQ supposed to be a "new deal"?

Andre:
You bet it is. There never was a 'subjective shadow of the real
article 'out there'. SOM has been, and still is, a huge commercial
con- trick.

Bodvar (exasperated at my statement that a static pattern cannot be
used to 'capture' DQ:
What CAN be used? Isn't intuition or approximation also some static -
conscious or unconscious - product?

Andre:
That is not my understanding of 'intuition'. Intuition is one of these
'mystical' referent terms to explain something you do not understand
the workings of after something as been 'revealed' to you. It is
'typcal' SOM stuff.

I think that the MoQ would agree if I say that 'intuition' is the same
as DQ (as referent term). It is therefore not a static 'product'. You
are still not understanding the DQ/SQ relationship properly.

Bodvar:
If you insist on this approach you are left with a Q variety of the
paradox if a falling tree makes a noise with no listener. Is there
Quality with no "medium" to convey it?

Andre:
Here you ask it and again I say it: DQ/SQ.

Bodvar:
Again, listen you dear fool: From the moment the S/O distinction is
(metaphysically) rejected, there is no "objective" Quality that the MOQ
is a "subjective" rendering of.

Andre:
And you listen, you silly old bastard (yeah, don't get personal with
me! you have at least 20 years on me!!!-:))) It really is time that
you are listening to your own words and reflect on them. And please
listen carefully...this is crucial...:

You say:
I know that Pirsig don't use the S & O terms, but by calling the MOQ
"static" and Quality "dynamic" he abuses dynamic and static to mean
the same. DQ is dynamic - that's implied in the term, but the MOQ
isn't static for saying so.

Andre:
You equate 'dynamic' with 'objective' and 'static' with 'subjective'.
This is not a good way to understand these terms, nor is it a good way
to understand to MoQ and reinforces my point above that you do not
understand DQ/SQ.( with all respect)

Bodvar:
Not to distract you from this crucial issue I stop here.

Andre:
I am glad you stopped presenting this 'crucial' issue ( to remain
focussed)  and hope that it does not stop here for you.

Bodvar:
Thanks all the same Andre, you are a true thinker willing to probe the
very foundations of the MOQ.

Andre:
You provided me with a sleepless night Bodvar: what are the
foundations of the MoQ? And I dreamt I just floated in emptyness.Soooo
dynamically relaxed.

Kind regards
Andre