[MD] Metaphysics

[John Carl]

Dearest Unkle Bo,

Questions are never useless, though sometimes the answers are... hopefully
that won't be the case here.


> I guess it's useless but now I'll pose a few questions.
>
> 1) Is the DQ of MOQ's DQ/SQ something else than Quality?
>
>
John:

In my thinking, DQ is experienced Quality.   I guess I sorta use "Quality"
the way Ham uses "Essence", in that I feel I want something outside of my
experience to be generating my experience.  I can't picture that as
 random-chaos-probability because my conceptions of order pragmatically
work.  I can't picture it as "not this, not that" because I can't picture
"not this not that".  I can't picture it as a greybearded guy in the sky
because religion has seriously pissed me off and I can't picture it as
essense because I can't picture what is-ness is.

So I picture it as Quality.  I can picture Quality.




> 2) If Pirsig said that Quality IS the DQ, will that alter anything?
>
>

John:

Depends on what you mean by "alter".  Depends on what you mean by
"anything".  Depends on what you mean by "said".

So much dependency, so little time....

To an individual experience, the realization of Quality is the experience of
Quality is Quality. But any individual experience is ultimately dependent
upon a communal/social basis for being,  a point that Pirsig the
isolationist misses out on, especially in his early thinking.

In short, I think purely equating DQ with Quality obviates the subjective
interplay that is the ground of realizable experience.

But I could be wrong.




> 3) How do you manage to make the MOQ fit inside a smaller part of
> its own (the intellectual level) without violating the container logic.?
>
>
Shave some off the corners, pack it in tight, and jump hard on the lid.

Or as Tom Robbins famously said, "when it gets messy, eat it over the sink."




> 4) If there emerges a world view - a metaphysics - that claims that the
> MOQ is hogwash, is that still one of the countless possible
> descriptions of Quality?
>
>

Now that's a good question.  Thank you Unkle.  Sometimes I have considered
my own view to be "QM" - that is, the highest quality metaphysical theory I
have found so far.  Where I am at, so to speak.  This is to differentiate in
my head between what I think is a good way to think about things, and what
the MoQ says is a good way to think about things.

Now, over time, my metaphysics is bound to surpass the MoQ, because I keep
testing it and pushing against it and modifying my own stance according to
what I perceive as good.

But really, what I see as the heart of the MoQ, is exactly that premise!  I
got the idea that Quality is a real entity which I can use to judge ideas
FROM the MoQ, and I see that as the very heart of the matter of a high
quality metaphysical belief system.   So how can there be any conflict?

The answer to that question,  I believe lies in the creative interplay
between the community and the individual.  MoQ isn't an authoritarian
doctrine, it's a communally evolving doctrine with a firm basis, that is,
rooted and grounded in, a living authority.

A unique beast, don't you agree?



> Hopefully
>
> Bodvar
>
>


Faithfully

John