[MD] DMB and Me

[Andre Broersen]

 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:
I give you another last chance. The MOQ postulates a DQ/SQ
reality, then its DQ is the Quality that has spawned the SQ ..OK?
What the heck is the Quality of the "Quality/MOQ" meta-
metaphysics? Have someone turned mad? If you just have the same
nonsense to offer, don't bother.

Andre:
Let's bite into this last temptation: from a 'dynamic' perspective DQ,
i.e. pure experience is reality.

>From a conventional static perspective 'reality' is DQ/SQ. They have
both arisen dependently. SQ 'arising' out of DQ. DQ being a
'characteristic' of SQ. This is the conventional differentiated
perspective.

I was delibrately annoying in my response because you keep on asking
for the 'real' Quality.( will the real Quality stand up please?).

You ask:
What the heck is the Quality of the "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics?

Andre:
There is no meta-metaphysics. Ths is what you make of it by
postulating an objective Quality and a subjective SQ. This is wrong!

The Quality/MoQ is DQ/SQ (with SQ being the static idea thereof, the
written program/metaphysics/philosophy). You are suggesting that this
written document is equivalent to Dynamic Quality i.e. pure experiece.
This is silly.

And if you regard this as the same nonsense then I am convinced that
there is Pirsig's MoQ and your MoQ and never the twain shall meet.

Andre