Hi Bo,
Sorry for such a late answer, but we've just been through a awfully hot
period here in Paris and I couldn't summon the courage to do anything more
than the bare necessities of survival... ;)
As for your post, I'll just go to the essential : Bo, please read my words
carefully before attacking me with the idealist label.
Where on earth have you found that I proposed an "all-inclusive
consciousness" ? This is not what I've said, I'm not saying it and I won't.
Please, please, at least don't put any words in my mouth without asking me
if I agree with them. I don't.
As for your argument that once the DQ/SQ split is done, you cannot go back
to S/O logic to differentiate Quality from the MOQ, I completely disagree
with you. The S/O position, generally known as positivism, basically states
that there is an objective world, and our representation of it, which is
more or less subjective, and the less the better.
OTOH, Pirsig says that there is Quality, and good or bad intellectual
representations of it. It might sound the same for you, but it isn't. S/O
has nothing to do with this because the notion of an objective world has
already been destroyed. The difference between a SOM criticism and a MOQ
criticism is that the SOMist has already defined good and bad (as
objectivity / subjectivity) while the MOQist will try to keep an open mind
toward the goodness of any intellectual pattern. He does not define goodness
and then tries to find it in everything, but lets the goodness reveal
itself, by meeting any experience with a mind as unencumbered as possible.
You've just gone too far within the intellectual maze of the MOQ to remember
your starting point : Quality creates both Subjects and Objects. You are not
different from Quality, you *are* Quality. Your "separateness" is just an
illusion, so nothing can be said to be objective, not even Quality since it
is BEFORE objectivity. It creates it as a sense of Intellectual quality.
Differentiating Quality from the MOQ is ESSENTIAL, not because of an S/O
split, but because it leaves the door open to further growth. We do not
separate Quality from the MOQ because of a map/terrain analogy, but because
we do not presume we know everything about Quality, and because we keep a
mesure of modesty before the mysteries of the Universe. Finally, we
differentiate Quality from the MOQ because Quality *cannot* be defined.
Once you lose sight of the mystical insight that is the ontological starting
point of the MOQ, you start uttering gibberish (sorry, but that's how it
sounds to me) about the MOQ being an über-level equal to Quality itself, and
other statements so vague or bizarre that I cannot even begin to make sense
of them.
Keep an open mind ! :)
Denis
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:28 BST