[MD] DMB and Me

[Bodvar Skutvik]

Andre


27 March:


Andre wrote:

> The 'pesky (Quality(MOQ) 'is your invention Bodvar.

> If you mean Quality (dynamic) and the MoQ (a description of the

> presumed DQ/SQ 'interplay') then yes.


Yes, what? If I inform you that Pirsig has said that the Quality he spoke 

of in ZAMM is identical to MOQ's DQ, would that make some 

difference? Hello Anthony if you read this, can you offer the said quote 

again?. 


Bodvar before:

> Dynamic Quality (of the MOQ) is "pure experience", to postulate some

> Quality still more dynamic than DQ threatens the MOQ


Andre:

> No one postulates another Quality. I was suggesting the 'view' of Quality

> from 2 different perspectives; the static one; the DQ/SQ dance of Lila and

> DQ. 


Where do you find anything about a "Lila and DQ dance"? I think it a 

Broersen ad hoc embroidery. There is the DQ/SQ and that's all. 


FYI. 

LILA has nothing to do with the (Hindu?) "Lila". I have a letter from 

Pirsig where he says that the name originated in the lilac plant.


> In direct experience there is no MoQ. The MoQ is a static,

> intellectual pattern of value because it is a high quality static

> description of conventional reality (the world of everyday affairs). 


The MOQ made us aware of the Direct Experience/Static Experience 

context and thus created the Quality Reality. To speak about a 

Quality/MOQ context is merely reverting to SOM where Quality is the 

objective reality while the MOQ is something subjective and second-

hand. 


> I'll repeat one sentence for you Bodvar. I repeat it because you have avoided

> answering it previously: in direct experience there is no MoQ. You claim the

> MoQ= Reality. Thus you claim that the MoQ= direct experience. To avoid mis-

> understanding: the sign = means 'equivalent to'.


I claim that the MOQ creates the Quality Reality in the same sense 

that the Gravity Theory created the Gravity Reality. The MOQ is the 

DQ/SQ or Direct/Static Experience if you prefer. Get it?? 


> The fallacy of this position should be obvious. Yet you maintain it.

> Quality cannot be 'contained' in any belief systems. It cannot be

> 'captured' in reports, tradition, hearsay, or any authority. Not even

> in a metaphysics. Mr. Pirsig is very, very clear about this. So what do

> ya reckon ol'man? 


I have learned in my exchange with David Thomas that when a faulty 

position is established there is no limit to antics to defend it.


Bodvar