Re: MD New Level of Thinking

From: Sam Norton (
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 09:42:56 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD ill gotten gains"

    Hi Scott,

    I don't know if you subscribe to the MF group, but a little while back we had an interesting
    discussion on the relationship between Quality, DQ and SQ. I was arguing that Quality was prior to
    the split between DQ and SQ; others, including DMB, argued that SQ derived from DQ. I don't think
    that latter view is coherent, but I am not convinced that DMB is wrong in his interpretation of
    Pirsig. Which seems to be what you're saying here as well:

    > My impression is that Pirsig thinks of both "pure experience" and "the
    > leading edge of experience" as DQ. If I'm wrong on this, let me know where
    > he distinguishes them.
    > My view, which differs from the MOQ, is that DQ is never independent of SQ.
    > Rather, DQ and SQ always exist only insofar as they oppose each other as
    > they constitute each other, that is, they follow the form of contrdictory
    > identities. And so I reject the concept of "pure experience". All
    > experience is always a DQ/SQ opposition, which is best exemplified by our
    > experience of intellect.

    Just to make sure I understand you correctly, the logic of contradictory identity is to say that one
    thing cannot exist without its opposite, so, for example, you cannot understand 'light' without the
    equal and opposite notion of 'darkness', is that right? (What is the name for the Taoist black and
    white symbol, where the one merges into the other?) If you are saying that DQ and SQ are formed in
    relationship in that way, and that the whole is 'Quality' then I would be in agreement with you.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 11:18:13 GMT