[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[John Carl]

Hi Bo,

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:53 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

> Hi John
>



> The MOQ says that Quality=Reality=Experience" is split along the
> dynamic/static axis. There is no unscathed Quality/Reality/Experience
> left behind after the split.



I thought the MoQ said Quality is indefinable.  Definitionally so!



> > This realm of experience can be sliced and diced innumerable ways,  but
> > the best way we see to divide it, that is, the highest quality
> > explanation we can come up with right now, is that experience has a
> > dynamic aspect and a static aspect.  The dynamic we term DQ, the static
> > sq.
>
> Please give me ONE example of a slice - if not of the highest quality,
> yet a quality one - different from the DQ/SQ?
>
>
How about subjects and objects?  The world of appreciations, the world of
description?



> > In this metaphysics, experience is generated by Quality.  There is no
> > pre-valuation of anything.  Until something is valued, it doesn't
> > exist. That's the MoQ, and why, in MoQ terms, unpatterned is a fallacy.
>
> This smacked right. "Unpatterned is a fallacy". That's my point. Quality
> as something after the DQ/DQ divide is  a fallacy. An even greater
> fallacy is it that it can be divided innumerably ways and still be Quality.
>
>
Maybe I should say equating "unpatterned" with "something" is fallacious
thinking.

True chaos or randomness is pretty rare in nature, and by it's nature is
virtually invisible to us.  I can postulate pure non-patterned reality, I
can imagine such a thing as possibly existing, but I can't see any reason to
make it the source of being.  That's the problem I have with morOnism - it's
not that I don't believe chaos and chance exist, I just don't believe that
chaos and chance are the source of my existence.  I'm an "m"oQist, the
source of my being was my mommy's tummy.


John