[MD] Metaphysics

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Mary,

Mary:
> I have to join with Bo on this.  I really think Pirsig said some things he
> didn't believe himself sometimes in order to make the MoQ more palatable to
> academics, etc.

Steve:
Wow. This is quite an accusation.

In what partcular instances do you see Pirsig as lying about what he
really thinks? How do you go about deciding when Pirsig actually means
what he says and when he does not to untangle the "true MOQ"?

I can't see that he would have anything to gain in lieing about the
MOQ. Why would he lie to get the MOQ accepted when what would be
accepted was not the "true MOQ" (that only Bo gets) but merely a
shadow of the "true MOQ"? What would be gained in getting a false MOQ
accepted?


Mary:
>In places it sounds almost like he is second-guessing
> himself, especially when talking about how he shouldn't be trying to create
> a metaphysics at all of something so large as to be diminished by its own
> creation.  For me, words and language are poor tools to use for explaining
> DQ - and Pirsig knew it - even apologized for it.

Steve:
There is a necessary tension or irony in talking about something that
he states that by definition is undefinable as in the opening of the
Tao Te Ching: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."  Yet
we all know what quality is, and Pirsig goes on to describe quality at
length in his books. He cautions that none of these descriptions of
Quality is to be thought of as the true essence of Quality. They are
all fingers pointing to the moon. I don't see what this issue has to
do with your accusation.

Best,
Steve