[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[Steven Peterson]

 Hi All,



> Bo said:



> I use to say that Quality comprises all, but I don't really
> see the revolution of the Quality=Reality axiom. SOM hasn't anything
> which is S/O split, it simply postulates one subjective and one
> objective realm. Thus MOQ simply postulates one dynamic and one
> static realm. Can you, Steve, point to any practical difference
> between Dynamic Quality and Dynamic Reality?
>
Steve:
I don't understand what you are getting at for most of the above, but, nope.
I don't see a practical difference between Dynamic Quality and Dynamic
Reality. This is self-evident if Reality = Quality.

BO said:

> It is the pesky Quality on top (in the MOQ diagram) - then
> dynamic/static split, which is the source of all trouble. Dynamic
> Quality (or Dynamic Reality) has all the qualities (adjectives) he
> heaps on it, however it has spawned the known static layers that are
> definable, knowable ..etc.  I just can't fathom the wisdom behind
> making Quality something else than the DQ of the MOQ as if words is
> the great Satan *). Another fallacy is using "metaphysics" in the
> Aristotelian (dialectical) sense after he himself realized that there is
> no universe outside an ordered universe. i.e metaphysics in the
> Pirsigean sense.
>
> Steve:
It is interesting that you bring up two different senses of the term
metaphysics. I just wrote a letter to Pirsig on that exact topic to see if
he would offer any clarification.

The letter I wrote is posted on my blog here:
http://www.atheistichope.com/2010/01/i-recently-sent-this-letter-to-robert-m.html

Best,
Steve