ROG PLAYS WITH ANTELLOPE IN A
PACK OF DINGOS AND ENCOURAGES
AVID TO SHARE MORE OF HIS STUFF
>AVID:
>In this conversation I try to focus on what we don't agree to. It is not
>that I object to focusing on DQ, but to overfocusing on DQ. ......
>What makes MoQ unique is the structure of the SPQ, the idea of DQ is there
>and important, but being ungraspable, let it be the eliminating sword of
>reality [as in Darwin's biological evolution], and let us produce SPQ for
>reality's elimination survival test.
Rog:
I like your approach.
>AVID:
>Here I disagree. Seeing object and subject as standalones as entities that
>make up our universe is exactly what MoQ criticizes in the first place. MoQ
>says that S/O are quality dependant, so you can't say that an SPQ is just
>objects and subjects, here quality is missing from the structure. The
>problem is how to structure SPQ in a way that S/O are [maybe] part of it but
>don't stand there exclusively. Pirsig to my best knowledge, doesn't clarify
>this point, but here is a point for further developments.
>To transcend S/O, is as wage and as blurred as before, unless it goes to
>another level, but what is this level made of? Dq is not good enough, to
>much flowing, no structure, and SOM is too rigid. So the problem boils down
>to the best possible structure of a SPQ
ROG:
Agreed. We must not forget they are patterns of Quality.
(Roger previously quoted the Big Kahuna:)
>"This solution is to dissolve all static patterns, both sane and insane, and
> find the base of reality, Dynamic Quality, that is independent of all of
them.
>AVID:
>Yes I agree, but only as phase one, after finding DQ we have to build the
>SPQ structure in such a way that:
>1. It will ask the question about its quality as part of its structure.
>2. It will make constant improvement part of the system [evolutional, not
>revolutional].
>3. It will clarify the problems of layers.
>4. It will relate to other SPQ, horizontally [within a layer] and vertically
>[between layers]
>
ROG:
Again, I think you are right on.
>AVID:
>You miss the point. The thought that essence is graspable [the dream of 0%
>connotations] is a blinding dangerous way. The holocaust was one of its
>consequences. Purity is not of this world. Interlinked connotations and
>relationships between things is. The word doesn't bother me, its inflated
>mythical value is. The essence, the core, the source, don't hold as much
>quality as we traditionally think. Quality is in the harmonization of
>details, here in the essence quest the details get lost, terrible things
>were done in our history in the name of purity. So in my eyes its time to
>live in our unsure world and figure it out, leaving purity out of it.
ROG:
My point was that it is ungraspable too. I think we are just talking past
each other. Purity and Essence are insignificant terms to me , but they seem
to be loaded with connotation to you. No big deal.
>AVID:
>What is a R word?
>ROGER:
>Asta la vista Quality!
>AVID:
>Here I lost you.
ROG:
American humor doesn't translate well. Especially since I am not very
funny....nevermind.....
>ROGER:
>Great point, I will burn my copies of Lila right now.
>AVID:
>In my eyes LILA is not about essence it is about putting quality in the
>center of our life as a primary cut in digesting reality. So hopefully you
>haven't burnt your copies yet.
>How many copies of Lila do you have? Isn't one enough?
ROG:
Blaspheemer!!!! He only owns one copy!!!!
>ROGER:
>I can't imagine it either. My analogy is just that there are multiple
>dimensions to the answer of what is the base of reality. Reality is DQ
>(water) and sq (waves). Every analogy has its limitations. Can't you
>find anything you do agree with in the analogy?
>AVID:
>I see your point. But we have to be very careful with analogies, especially
>within a new metaphysics. The problem is not what an analogy says, but what
>it permits [once again it's connotations].......
>If somebody disagrees with me and tries to prove I'm wrong, then I have the
>chance to get more information of what I'm talking about, and I find it
>valuable. But if somebody agrees with me I have no gain in information by
>this agreeing so in my eyes agreement holds less value than disagreement.
ROG:
Yea. That is what I love about this forum. It will be healthy for you to
air your ideas here. Sometime when I float an idea on the MOQ I feel like it
is a herd of antellope chased by dingo dogs (wild Australian canines). My
weaker concepts, analogies and phrasing gets culled out and only the strong
survive. It helps better quality evolve. My most recent dingo dog is named
David B. ;-)
But I always try to be gentle, as I only do this because I love it.
Rog
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:10 BST