Andre: Imho if one continues the ZMM path one should go to the mountains or stay indoors and just follow DQ. This will end you up you know where!
Bodvar: Well, ZAMM isn't all that "dynamic", after all it ends with a proto DQ/SQ MOQ. (I mean one easily spots Romantic=Dynamic and Classic=Static) Andre: I meant this in the sense of Pirsig's explanation that 'In Buddhism, the world can be described in terms of 'The First Principle' sometimes called 'Formlessness' or 'nothingness' or 'freedom' which parallels the treatment of Quality in ZMM. As you say, 'it ends with a proto DQ/SQ' postulate because 'The world can also be described in terms of 'The Second Principle' of 'Form' or 'order' which parallels the treatment of quality in LILA. In Buddhism, form and formlessness, freedom and order, co-exist. (McWatt, PhD, p44). I think, what is being put forward here are two very different approaches to reality i.e. Quality. The first is direct experience, the second is what we abstract from this experience. Bodvar: The notion that the MOQ is an "intellectual pattern", i.e. all levels basically are "intellectual" is MOQ seen from within MOQ's intellectual level, i.e.from SOM. Seen from the MOQ the 4th. intellectual level is a subset of the MOQ. Can't you get this into your head? Andre: Yes, Bodvar, I can get that into my head but what I cannot get into my head is that it is SOM. Or to be more precise; the s/o aggregate. I am influenced here by a few quotes from different people: Platt: 'Far from condemning SOM, the Metaphysics of Quality holds it to be the highest level yet achieved'. (LC,p396) Which drew this response from Mr. Pirsig: 'Within the intellectual level, mathematics, especially quantum mechanics, seem higher to me' (ibid, Annotn:131,p422) Platt continues on p 397: 'So, I fully agree with Bo's insight that the SOM and the intellectual level are one and the same...To that end, the MoQ is the best S?O answer I've found yet'. Which drew this response fron Mr. Pirsig: 'I think this conclusion undermines the MoQ....The MoQ is in opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a part of that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal.....It's just that I see a lowering of the quality of the MoQitself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it opposes. ( ibid, Annotn:133,p423). Anthony McWatt: For me the word 'subject' denotes mind and society while 'object' denotes chemicals and biology...to put subjects and objects (together) as equivalent to the MoQ intellectual level seems contrary to Pirsig's thinking' (ibid, p 405) Which drew this response from Mr. Pirsig: 'True' (ibid Annotn,134,p423) Paul Turner: In the MOQ, experience (as synonymous with Quality) is undivided, any intellectual distinctions logically come after; thus I think it is more a matter of common sense that "experience comes to us in S/O form" rather than an empirical experience.(MD correspondence) Yes, indeed Paul. This S/O being intellect or intellect being the S/O distinction is not 'an empirical experience'. As Pirsig observes in Annotn.60 in answer to the observation that ' The MoQ also says that every quality event results in one subject and one object...:It says subjects and objects are deduced from quality events, but many quality events occur without a resultant subject and object ' Bodvar: How much I wanted you to be on the right path, you stray. Andre: I am sure you will have your objections, even to Pirsig himself ,selling out, or not having the guts or whatever. I think it was Krishnamurti who said that truth is a land with many paths. I'll have to find my own Bodvar and thus far I am travelling in pretty good company though at one stage I must depart from them too. Cheers, Andre, the dud again. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
